TexasCHLforum.com

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The text is quite simple. Many wish the framers would have modeled the amendment differently, but I find that I understand it well based on the founder's writings.

.......shall not be infringed

The BOR limits governmental power to trample on our rights. The term "reasonable restriction" sickens me when I hear the antis use it because I know I am about to lose more of my RKBA and even more when I hear supposed pro-RKBA individuals use the term because it means the person has rolled over on their back in submission to a government trampling on my rights.

I am not certain where the term "reasonable restrictions" first came around but I think some of the legal eagles will certainly say so. I believe that the first time the term was used was the beginning of the end of our freedom from tyrany.

Just because a government denies/takes away a freedom does not mean we no longer have it. Supposedly we can not yell "fire" in a movie theater - reasonable restriction of a right. It is illegal but I can still do it. I will be prosecuted but it does not make it any less a right.

Some virulent antis want to repeal the second amendment, the same as prohibition was repealed.

We would still have the right to keep and bear arms even if it was repealed.

My opinion - all gun control laws are infringement. I can not tolerate any more. I have to have relief. Some of the statements lately that proclaim people must have documented training to carry make no sense to me. How can freedom loving individuals shackle their fellow man by such a statement?

Convince me that reasonable restrictions on firearms are necessary. I should be able to posess any infantry type hand operated weapon or sporting firearm - no restrictions. I should be allowed to carry anywhere I wish. for purposes of this discussion I will honor private property owner's rights to control my carry. Look out governments - you can not keep me out because you are the infringers.

Bye bye NFA 1934, GCA, 1986, all restrictions are gone. I am liberated. Convince me that your reasonable restrictions are more prudent and reasonable than my no restrictions. Remember, whatever you restrict on my RKBA, you can expect the same on all of the rest of your rights. Keep me from carrying, and I keep you from speaking or worshipping.

Anygunanywhere.

Here's something I wrote yesterday in rec.guns:

Everyone who thinks we need more "gun control," please clear your mind and read this:

No law can stop determined criminals from getting weapons or anything else that they want.

Every time the barrier is raised by background checks, permits, approval by the sheriff, or any other legal measure, criminals find a way around it.

If every single transfer of a firearm had to go through an FFL (as they do in some states now), criminals would get their throwaway girlfriends to buy them weapons (as they do now).

If handguns were absolutely banned, and the penalty for having one was 20 to 50 years in prison, criminals would smuggle them in from abroad (as they do now in the U.K. and other countries).

Do you know how many hundreds of tons of illegal drugs are successfully smuggled into the U.S. and distributed every year? Nobody really does. All the smugglers have to do include a pistol with every bag of cocaine and heroin.

If we truly support the right to keep and bear arms, let's remember that it is a right. It does not require permission from a government bureaucrat.

And let's stop supporting mealy-mouthed politicians who pay it lip service while failing to remove all the useless infringements that have crept in.

- Jim

I agree that for the gun ban lobby, the term "reasonable restrictions" is just a code word for whatever their latest gun ban scheme is. Just like "common sense" gun laws, another code word.

But at the same time, we need to recognize that there are some laws that have the effect of making gun possession and ownership more difficult for criminals and/or terrorists, while imposing little or no burden on the law-abiding. From the laws of economics, which are really just another way of accounting for rational human behavior, we know that if something is more costly and/or harder to do, people do less of it, and if it is less costly or easier to do, people do more of it.

It follows that laws or restrictions that place little burden on LAC's while placing a larger burden on BG's can be expected to tilt the playing field in favor of LAC's.

As I stated in another thread (and which cause me to catch many flames), allowing anyone to casually tote MP-5's aboard airliners means that Al Qaeda death squads can blend right in with the general population. So sure, some GG's might carry MP-5's aboard as well. And if the AQ's tried to do a hijacking, the GG's could engage them in a firefight and blow them away.

But that's not how I want to live when I fly (like I am going to in a couple of weeks). I prefer the aircraft cabin to be a "sterile area" where guns and other weapons are not allowed except for the sky marshalls and pilots. That way, I can catch a nap instead of spending the whole flight in Condition Red.

For evidence of the desireability of this arrangement, I would simply note that at one time is was perfectly OK to carry a gun aboard a passenger liner. And in the 60's, it became quite common for passengers to pull guns and demand that the planes be diverted to Cuba and other places. This can be easily verified with a little online digging. In response, passenger screening was introduced, (sometime in the 70's) banning guns, weapons, etc. It can be seen that after screening was implemented, hijackings plummeted to a much lower level than before.

Is this constitutional? The aircraft are, after all, private property. For an answer, I would look to the commerce clause. Commercial aircraft are engaged in interstate commerce. (And yes, there may be rare exceptions, especially in a place as big as Texas, but in the main, it's interstate commerce.) So you have a conflict between the government's enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce, and the 2A RKBA. When conflicts like this arise, we look to the courts to resolve them, if necessary.

I don't know if the law/regulation banning guns in the passenger cabin has ever been challenged, but I do know that it is still in place. So it either hasn't been challenged or if it was, the challenge failed.

None of the BOR are absolute. You need a parade permit if you're going to block off a public street with your expression of speech and your intent to peaceably assemble. If parade permits were unconstitutional, any group could get together and block off any street at any time. This would infringe upon the rights of the rest of us to engage in free movement.

Sometimes rights conflict with each other. Sometimes they conflict with enumerated powers or purposes. (Think, "..to provide for domestic tranquility.."). And when this happens, something has to yield.

In my view, shall issue CHL, background checks, and secure areas do not infringe upon the RKBA. I can get a CHL, I can pass a background check, and those establishing a secure area are taking tangible steps to ensure that it is secure for everyone who enters. (Yes, I know. It's not perfect. The 9/11 hijackings happened in secure areas. But nothing created by Man is perfect. If you advocate full auto shootouts at 30,000 feet as the best airline security, you have to account for whatever casualties that result when deciding how "perfect" your method is.) Criminals and terrorists can't get CHL's (meaning they risk arrest whenever they carry guns in public) and they can't pass background checks (meaning that they are forced into the black market to obtain guns.)

And sure, guns are readily available on the black market. But the BG's can't just walk into a store like I can and have their pick of hundreds of different guns. So they have to go to more trouble than I do. If there were no background checks, as it was long ago, they could just walk into a store like me.

OTOH, owner licensing, gun bans, "may issue" CHL's, registration (possibly, because of its negligible benefit and large potential for abuse), and "no guns" rules on (most) public property and public accommodations are infringements on the 2A IMO, and are not reasonable restrictions.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:I agree that for the gun ban lobby, the term "reasonable restrictions" is just a code word for whatever their latest gun ban scheme is. Just like "common sense" gun laws, another code word.

Common ground. The antis claim that common ground is where we need to go to achieve agreement on “reasonable restrictions�. Not a slam on you, Frankie, just pointing it out.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:But at the same time, we need to recognize that there are some laws that have the effect of making gun possession and ownership more difficult for criminals and/or terrorists, while imposing little or no burden on the law-abiding.

Who decides what is a burden on me?

But at the same time, we need to recognize that there are some laws that have the effect of making bible/koran possession and ownership more difficult for christians and/or terrorists, while imposing little or no burden on the law-abiding.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:It follows that laws or restrictions that place little burden on LAC's while placing a larger burden on BG's can be expected to tilt the playing field in favor of LAC's.

Tell me exactly how this works. Prohibition worked really well. All those LAC’s were not affected at all were they? Lots of them were turned into criminals via reasonable restrictions the same as many folks and gun laws.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:The aircraft are, after all, private property.

I said I will not address private property. I have issues with the government, the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and the whole airliner thing. I will leave this as a private property right. If the government started an airline, infringement would be unconstitutional.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:None of the BOR are absolute. You need a parade permit if you're going to block off a public street with your expression of speech and your intent to peaceably assemble. If parade permits were unconstitutional, any group could get together and block off any street at any time. This would infringe upon the rights of the rest of us to engage in free movement.

Permits are unconstitutional because they are not applied consistently. Join a pro-life march and see how your equal protection rights are trampled. If you want to use an example of reasonable restrictions on enumerated rights, try and find one that one of the branches of government has not trampled into a mess. Parade permits are denied all the time – not shall issue. You seem to like the shall issue permit thing to exercise a right.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Sometimes rights conflict with each other. Sometimes they conflict with enumerated powers or purposes. (Think, "..to provide for domestic tranquility.."). And when this happens, something has to yield.

My rights ALWAYS trump powers and purposes. Me, Anygun, one of the people, gives the government its powers. The government has its powers at MY discretion. Let the government yield to me.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:In my view, shall issue CHL, background checks, and secure areas do not infringe upon the RKBA.

Sure will be a sad day when your RKBA permission slip is cancelled. Sure will be a sad day when all that information big brother has from all the NICS checks surfaces.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Criminals and terrorists can't get CHL's (meaning they risk arrest whenever they carry guns in public) and they can't pass background checks (meaning that they are forced into the black market to obtain guns.)

Since when do they care about laws? Last time I checked only LACs obey the law.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:And sure, guns are readily available on the black market. But the BG's can't just walk into a store like I can and have their pick of hundreds of different guns. So they have to go to more trouble than I do. If there were no background checks, as it was long ago, they could just walk into a store like me.

I really do not think that this is a valid argument.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:OTOH, owner licensing, gun bans, "may issue" CHL's, registration (possibly, because of its negligible benefit and large potential for abuse), and "no guns" rules on (most) public property and public accommodations are infringements on the 2A IMO, and are not reasonable restrictions.

You are fine with licensing free men to carry handguns but not guns. That is nice. You are against gun bans. Nice too. You think registration is subject to abuse? What about CHLs?

If you think licensing individuals to carry concealed is fine, then what other rights are you willing to put under the scrutiny of licensing? Let’s license preachers before they try to spread the gospel. After all you claim none of the BOR is absolute. If you believe that none of our rights are absolute, then you are doomed to lose them since we seem to have a run away government.

Anygun

Frankie, the issue of machine guns on commercial airliners is a straw man. It will never happen. The U.S. airlines are private companies and and will never allow it. Foreign airlines are owned by their socialist, freedom-hating governments and also will never allow it.

Show me one case of a convicted felon, known lunatic, or underage criminal who was unable to obtain a weapon because of "gun control." Millions of such people are arrested every year. Very few of them bought their weapons from an FFL.

- JIm

seamusTX wrote: Frankie, the issue of machine guns on commercial airliners is a straw man. It will never happen. The U.S. airlines are private companies and and will never allow it. Foreign airlines are owned by their socialist, freedom-hating governments and also will never allow it.

OK. But as I stated, back in the 50's and earlier, it was perfectly legal to carry a gun in your carry on bag for airliners flying between many jurisdictions in the USA. (Whether it was legal was basically a function of whether it was legal to carry or transport the gun at your origin and destination on the ground.) And no one was checked or screened so in theory anyone could do it and not get caught. In the 60's, criminals and terrorists (including Cubans, Arabs, and others) started to take advantage of this and began hijacking planes at gunpoint. It became very common, more than one a month at times.

Then guns were banned in the passenger cabin. Passengers and their carry on bags began to be screened. And hijackings plummeted to much lower levels than had previously been the case.

This can easily be verified with some online research. I did this a while back as part of a lengthy debate on this very subject on another forum. I'm too lazy to dig up the links right now. But it's true. And I was around at the time and remember how it was.

seamusTX wrote: Show me one case of a convicted felon, known lunatic, or underage criminal who was unable to obtain a weapon because of "gun control." Millions of such people are arrested every year. Very few of them bought their weapons from an FFL.

- JIm

That's almost like saying, "Show me a crime that wasn't committed because....." There may be such uncommitted crimes out there, but how would we ever hear of them?

But that's not really my argument. What I'm saying is, if I, with my CHL, want to go out in public carrying a gun, it is no problem for me whatsoever. If I come into contact with an LEO, so what? I'll declare if I (legally) need to and everyone will continue to have a nice day.

If the BG, with no CHL, wants to go out armed, he is putting himself at risk as soon as he steps outside his door. If he comes into contact with an LEO, he gets in trouble. Most likely, he's gonna have to do time. BG's don't want to do time any more than anyone else does. So this imposes a potential cost on his behavior that is not imposed on me.

A couple of things that result from this are:

1) Some BG's get caught with guns and sent to jail. Thus, they are off the streets while they are doing their time. When they are off the streets, they can't hurt us. If they hadn't had a gun with them, their LEO "contact" would probably have resulted in no problems, or at least no jail time, for them.

2) If they have both a gun and some dope, they are eligible for additional time beyond what the dope alone would have gotten them. Maybe even a federal rap. Also, they might be more likely to plead out.

Basically, it gives LE more reasons to lock them up for a longer time.

In addition, think of how many times we hear of some idiot illegally carrying who, when an LEO contacts him, tries to run or fight. Frequently, these fools end up getting themselves killed or locked up for a really long time. We had one in Austin 6 months or so ago.

None of these potential costs apply to people like you and me, right? We're not gonna run or fight or get ourselves killed by an LEO making contact with us, right?

This is what I mean when I say that the CHL law, for instance, puts a small burden on people like us (Good Guys) while putting a much larger burden on criminals and other assorted Bad Guys.

Of course, I am referring to "shall issue" CHL laws that are fairly administered. Laws that are badly drawn, not shall issue, and/or unfairly administered are infringements on our 2A rights. I oppose such laws. But it doesn't follow that I therefore oppose all laws.

My home state of RI is a prime example of a place with abusive, unconstitutional laws and unfair administration. RI has a strong RKBA clause in its constitution - just like the federal one but without any reference to a militia. The RKBA shall not be infringed, period.

Yet, it also has may issue CHL's at the state level that are issued on a highly restrictive basis. (The AG must agree that you have a "good reason" to carry a gun. And "protection of innocent life" does not qualify as such a reason.) It has "shall issue" CHL issued by cities and towns, except that most cities and towns refuse to even accept applications. They tell you flat out that they do not and will not issue permits, even though the law clearly states that they "shall". Essentially, they tell you to sue them. How's that for unfair administration?

A couple of people have sued, successfully, and gotten permits from a few towns. But all of the larger cities and many towns still do not take applications and still do not issue permits.

So believe me, I know unfair administration of gun laws right up close and personal.

anygunanywhere wrote: Common ground. The antis claim that common ground is where we need to go to achieve agreement on “reasonable restrictions�.

Yup. That's another code word used by the gun banners.

anygunanywhere wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:But at the same time, we need to recognize that there are some laws that have the effect of making gun possession and ownership more difficult for criminals and/or terrorists, while imposing little or no burden on the law-abiding.

Who decides what is a burden on me?

I guess we all decide for ourselves what we think. I'm just making some examples and applying deductive reasoning to arrive at conclusions.

My point is that it is possible to draw up laws that place a larger burden on one group (say BG's) than on another (say, GG's). Not that a given law imposes zero burden on GG's. Just that it imposes a larger one on BG's.

See my response to seamus for some examples of what I mean there.

anygunanywhere wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:It follows that laws or restrictions that place little burden on LAC's while placing a larger burden on BG's can be expected to tilt the playing field in favor of LAC's.

Tell me exactly how this works. Prohibition worked really well. All those LAC’s were not affected at all were they? Lots of them were turned into criminals via reasonable restrictions the same as many folks and gun laws.

1) I am not advocating for gun "prohibition". And Prohibition (of alcohol) made alcohol illegal for everyone. That's not what I am talking about. If I have a CHL, carrying a gun is not illegal for me. But it is illegal for a BG, who can't get a CHL.

2) Again, check out my reply to seamus for examples of what I mean and how it works out in practice.

anygunanywhere wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:None of the BOR are absolute. You need a parade permit if you're going to block off a public street with your expression of speech and your intent to peaceably assemble. If parade permits were unconstitutional, any group could get together and block off any street at any time. This would infringe upon the rights of the rest of us to engage in free movement.

Permits are unconstitutional because they are not applied consistently. Join a pro-life march and see how your equal protection rights are trampled.

Permits may be unconstitutional or not. It depends on how they are administered. Just because some local government has exceeded its constitutional authority in granting parade permits at one time or another doesn't mean that any and all permitting schemes are unconstitutional. Certainly at various times the courts have upheld some permitting laws or decisions and struck down others. And if you look around, you need a parade permit, or something like it, to block off a public street in just about every jurisdiction that I know of.

anygunanywhere wrote: If you want to use an example of reasonable restrictions on enumerated rights, try and find one that one of the branches of government has not trampled into a mess.

Easy. The TX CHL law.

anygunanywhere wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Sometimes rights conflict with each other. Sometimes they conflict with enumerated powers or purposes. (Think, "..to provide for domestic tranquility.."). And when this happens, something has to yield.

My rights ALWAYS trump powers and purposes. Me, Anygun, one of the people, gives the government its powers. The government has its powers at MY discretion. Let the government yield to me.

Different people can have different opinions about these things. We resolve such differences in the courts. And the courts do not agree that your rights, or mine, or ours, always trump powers and purposes.

And the government doesn't get its powers from you. It gets them from all 300 million of us. We elect people to public office, judges get appointed, etc. Every so often, if enough of us don't like the way things are going we elect different officials, etc.

anygunanywhere wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:In my view, shall issue CHL, background checks, and secure areas do not infringe upon the RKBA.

Sure will be a sad day when your RKBA permission slip is cancelled. Sure will be a sad day when all that information big brother has from all the NICS checks surfaces.

If that day comes, then the government will be acting in a way that I believe to be unconstitutional. And it will be infringing upon the RKBA. But it does not follow that it is doing it now.

anygunanywhere wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Criminals and terrorists can't get CHL's (meaning they risk arrest whenever they carry guns in public) and they can't pass background checks (meaning that they are forced into the black market to obtain guns.)

Since when do they care about laws? Last time I checked only LACs obey the law.

Refer to my reply to seamus for where my argument leads.

anygunanywhere wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:And sure, guns are readily available on the black market. But the BG's can't just walk into a store like I can and have their pick of hundreds of different guns. So they have to go to more trouble than I do. If there were no background checks, as it was long ago, they could just walk into a store like me.

I really do not think that this is a valid argument.

Then we must agree to disagree about that.

anygunanywhere wrote: If you think licensing individuals to carry concealed is fine, then what other rights are you willing to put under the scrutiny of licensing?

I don't know. Besides, we are talking about gun rights here, right?

anygunanywhere wrote: Let’s license preachers before they try to spread the gospel.

Preaching is not carrying a gun. Just because something may be appropriate in some situations does not mean that it must be appropriate in all situations.

anygunanywhere wrote: After all you claim none of the BOR is absolute.

It's more than my claim. Check it out. It's the law of the land. By that I mean that the judges we have had, appointed by people that we elected, over the last two centuries or so have interpreted the law that way.

I doubt that so many people have been wrong about the meaning of the constitution and the law for such a long time.

Remember that Marbury v Madison, the decision that established judicial review of the law, was handed down in the early 1800's. Many of the Founding Fathers were still alive then. They knew better than anyone what they meant when they wrote the Constitution. If they did not intend for judicial review, we would surely know it from their writings. In fact, I would have expected that there would have been attempts to impeach the SCOTUS judges who joined in that ruling.

I'm quite sure that none of the justices involved were impeached. Does anyone know if there even were any attempts to impeach any of them (for reasons related to their Marbury v Madison ruling)?

anygunanywhere wrote: If you believe that none of our rights are absolute, then you are doomed to lose them since we seem to have a run away government.

Anygun

If our rights were absolute, how would we resolve situations where two or more rights conflict with each other? Who would decide who's "right" took precedence?

An example I used on another forum was, what if you were rushing your mother to the hospital with a burst appendix. Every second counts. And on the way, you find yourself blocked by an unexpected traffic jam. And what caused the traffic jam? Gee Whiz! It seems a group of people from the Brady Campaign decided to exercise their absolute rights to peacefully assemble and engage in free speech right in the middle of that taxpayer funded road. (i.e. public property that they helped pay for) After struggling to get through, you find 100 Brady Campaign people lying down on the sidewalk in front of the Emergency Entrance, chaining themselves together and to nearby utility poles to "dramatize the plight of victims of gun violence." They too are blocking your way.

They have a right to assemble, both on the public street and the sidewalk. They have a right to speak freely. And you have a right to move about on public roads and sidewalks. Not to mention your mother's right to life, liberty, .....etc.

If you want to say, "Yeah, but they can't block the sidewalk in front of the Emergency Entrance.", I could reply, "Says who? And what if they disagree?", or, "Why not? The symbolism of the Emergency Entrance is central to their whole message about the victims of 'gun violence'."

In a nutshell, that's why rights aren't absolute, and why parade permits are constitutional.

anygunanywhere wrote:Convince me that reasonable restrictions on firearms are necessary. I should be able to posess any infantry type hand operated weapon or sporting firearm - no restrictions. I should be allowed to carry anywhere I wish. for purposes of this discussion I will honor private property owner's rights to control my carry. Look out governments - you can not keep me out because you are the infringers.

Bye bye NFA 1934, GCA, 1986, all restrictions are gone. I am liberated. Convince me that your reasonable restrictions are more prudent and reasonable than my no restrictions. Remember, whatever you restrict on my RKBA, you can expect the same on all of the rest of your rights. Keep me from carrying, and I keep you from speaking or worshipping.

Anygunanywhere.

Since the writers of the Bill of Rights had just gone through the revolution, which was, in part at least, caused by the "legitimate" government's attempt to seize cannon, I see no reason to accept your limitation to "any infantry type hand operated weapon or sporting firearm - no restrictions."

Like has been said, who gets to decide what's reasonable? I see restrictions on cannon as being unreasonable, Frankie, having been raised in RI, sees restrictions that are less than what he knew before as being reasonable, so who gets to decide which of our opinions is reasonable?

Nope, the time for compromise is long past, and we saw the failures of our attempts at compromise, and what's "reasonable" will be dictated by someone who has enough power to do so.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:OK. But as I stated, back in the 50's and earlier, it was perfectly legal to carry a gun in your carry on bag for ... In the 60's, criminals and terrorists (including Cubans, Arabs, and others) started to take advantage of this and began hijacking planes at gunpoint. It became very common, more than one a month at times.

Then guns were banned in the passenger cabin. Passengers and their carry on bags began to be screened.

I'm old enough to remember that. In 1965, the first time that I flew, boarding a commercial airplane was like boarding a bus or train.

Try this alternative history: In the 60s, criminals and lunatics began to try hijacking planes. When a would-be hijacker presented a threat, a flight attendant put a .357 Magnum round through his left kidney, heart, and right lung. The flight officer in the secure cabin radioed the nearest tower for a clean-up crew.

The airlines did not care for that scenario, and instead hundreds of hijackings occurred.

Of course, the billions of dollars for security and wasted hours of passenger time and loss of personal dignity were worthwhile, since they foiled the September 11, 2001, hijacking plot.

Oh. They didn't.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

seamusTX wrote: Show me one case of a convicted felon, known lunatic, or underage criminal who was unable to obtain a weapon because of "gun control."

That's almost like saying, "Show me a crime that wasn't committed because....." There may be such uncommitted crimes out there, but how would we ever hear of them?

Exactly right. No one can prove that any "gun control" measure prevented a crime. No one can demonstrate that a "gun control" measure reduced overall crime rates, because none ever did. Crime rates go up and down with no correlation to laws in effect at the time.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:In addition, think of how many times we hear of some idiot illegally carrying who, when an LEO contacts him, tries to run or fight. Frequently, these fools end up getting themselves killed or locked up for a really long time. ...

None of these potential costs apply to people like you and me, right?

I would say that the LEO's and innocent people who are hurt and killed by such chases and the subsequent lawsuits and cost of imprisonment are a cost to us.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:This is what I mean when I say that the CHL law, for instance, puts a small burden on people like us (Good Guys) while putting a much larger burden on criminals and other assorted Bad Guys.

I agree that this is true on a practical level, and I go along with it.

But as a general principle, if I can steal a penny from you and not suffer the consequences, can I then steal a penny a year, a penny a day, or a penny a millisecond? The cliché of "death by a thousand cuts" has a basis in reality.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote: Then guns were banned in the passenger cabin. Passengers and their carry on bags began to be screened.

I'm old enough to remember that. In 1965, the first time that I flew, boarding a commercial airplane was like boarding a bus or train.

Try this alternative history: In the 60s, criminals and lunatics began to try hijacking planes. When a would-be hijacker presented a threat, a flight attendant put a .357 Magnum round through his left kidney, heart, and right lung. The flight officer in the secure cabin radioed the nearest tower for a clean-up crew.

The airlines did not care for that scenario, and instead hundreds of hijackings occurred.

I have no idea if things would work out as in your scenario. While your scenario is hypothetical, mine is a historical fact. After guns were banned in the passenger cabin and screening implemented, hijackings plummetted.

And note also that before sometime in the late 70's or early 80's (I don't remember which), pilots could carry guns if they wanted to and from what I have read quite a few did. Then as now, many pilots were ex-military, and were comfortable around guns.

The armed hijackers would tend to get the drop on them. (Cockpit doors weren't hardened in those days.)

seamusTX wrote: Of course, the billions of dollars for security and wasted hours of passenger time and loss of personal dignity were worthwhile, since they foiled the September 11, 2001, hijacking plot.

Oh. They didn't.

No defense is perfect.

And 9/11 had nothing to do with banning weapons, certainly guns, from the passenger cabin. It had more to do with the FAA's incredibly stupid decision in the 70's or 80's to ban the flight deck officers from carrying guns. I have never understood by what reasoning we trust them to fly the plane, but we couldn't trust them to have guns available to defend themselves (and everyone else).

seamusTX wrote: Exactly right. No one can prove that any "gun control" measure prevented a crime. No one can demonstrate that a "gun control" measure reduced overall crime rates, because none ever did.

Ummm, not quite. Just like one can't prove that any particular gun control measure, or combination of them, has been effective, it is more or less equally difficult to prove that such measures have never been effective.

seamusTX wrote: Crime rates go up and down with no correlation to laws in effect at the time.

Pretty much true. But there are so many confounding factors that it is virtually impossible to sort out all of the effects. That's why I, for one, tend to rely on deductive reasoning to estimate what a given law might do or not do.

For instance, it is pretty straightforward to deduce that an outright gun ban, even if it could be accomplished, would put the weak at the mercy of the strong. Just it is easy to deduce that allowing for CHL's makes it easier for LAC's to protect themselves than if they could not get CHL's.

Lott has teased out some beneficial effects of shall issue CHL's by an exhaustive analysis of the statistics. But the effects he finds are small at best. Some other researchers find no measureable effect. About all we can really say for sure is that no one has found a negative effect from shall issue CHL. (I'm not including a few gun ban shills who claim to have found negative effects after cherry picking through the data.)

But I do not want to lose sight of the fact that even if there was a negative effect from shall issue CHL's, I would still favor them, because the way I read the constitution I believe that we have a right to carry guns if we want to, for better or for worse.

We don't limit free speech just because it allows for Nazis to speak, right?

seamusTX wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:In addition, think of how many times we hear of some idiot illegally carrying who, when an LEO contacts him, tries to run or fight. Frequently, these fools end up getting themselves killed or locked up for a really long time. ...

None of these potential costs apply to people like you and me, right?

I would say that the LEO's and innocent people who are hurt and killed by such chases and the subsequent lawsuits and cost of imprisonment are a cost to us.

Oh sure, those idiots impose a cost on us. But I was referring to the relative burden of carrying with a CHL (which is small) compared to a criminal carrying without a CHL, which is much larger. He risks going to prison. We don't. Sometimes, he wants to avoid prison so badly that he runs from or fights with the cops, causing him to either spend much more time in prison or to get himself killed. We don't.

seamusTX wrote:
But as a general principle, if I can steal a penny from you and not suffer the consequences, can I then steal a penny a year, a penny a day, or a penny a millisecond? The cliché of "death by a thousand cuts" has a basis in reality.

- Jim

But I, and the courts, say shall issue CHL's, for instance, are not "stealing."

Just like it seems the SCOTUS is about to rule that DC's gun ban is stealing.

One is "reasonable" and the other (probably) isn't.

jimlongley wrote: Like has been said, who gets to decide what's reasonable? I see restrictions on cannon as being unreasonable, Frankie, having been raised in RI, sees restrictions that are less than what he knew before as being reasonable, so who gets to decide which of our opinions is reasonable?

Maybe, but when I lived in RI I frequently thought of someday "escaping" to TX.



And I'd like to think that I form opinions on what is reasonable based on my reading of the constitution and applying deductive reasoning to this or that proposal or law rather than simply being a product of my previously oppressive environment.

There are good arguments that "arms" as referred to in the 2A meant what we would describe as "small arms" that would be carried by an infantryman. Things like pistols, rifles, and shotguns. I find myself pursuaded by these arguments.

I know there are arguments that go the other way, but I really don't think that the 2A affirms an unrestricted right to purchase nuclear bombs from vending machines and to keep and bear them as we individually please.

If there were such a right, I suspect that terrorists would have blown up most of our cities by now.

So if not nuclear bombs then what? Are cannon OK? How about attack helicopters, or aircraft carriers? (Bill Gates could afford a couple of them, along with their escort vessels, right?) Then there's always poison gas and infectious disease agents. Does the 2A affirm an unrestricted right to keep and bear such things?

If so, I'd like to see an estimate of the effects on our society from allowing for these things.

And if not, I'd like to see the constitutional principle by which cannon are OK, for instance, while nuclear bombs are not.

Remember, if we ban nuclear bomb vending machines, we could eventually work our way down to the point where slingshots are banned as well, right?

The point being, sometimes the slippery slope can be pretty slippery, and sometimes it is hardly slippery at all. Or maybe like many ski mountains, it is steep at the top, but levels out about halfway down the mountain to where even duffers like me can ski it.

Man, I tell ya...When someone presses the "shall not be infringed button"...Whew!!!

This forum goes thermonuclear!!!

I would imagine that since we only have candidates left running for President now that are so weak on the Second Amendment, that we'd have some discussion about who's going to abstain from this particular part of the ballot in November, or try to find a way to hold their noses and help the cause of the gun-control minions, or the "reasonable restriction" candidates...

Either way, in my opinion, there is not a single candidate worth a free bowl of soup left in the race now that would get my vote for the job...

stevie_d_64 wrote:Either way, in my opinion, there is not a single candidate worth a free bowl of soup left in the race now that would get my vote for the job...

stevie_d_64 wrote:Man, I tell ya...When someone presses the "shall not be infringed button"...Whew!!!

This forum goes thermonuclear!!!

I would imagine that since we only have candidates left running for President now that are so weak on the Second Amendment, that we'd have some discussion about who's going to abstain from this particular part of the ballot in November, or try to find a way to hold their noses and help the cause of the gun-control minions, or the "reasonable restriction" candidates...

I'm going to vote for the Repulican nominee no matter who it is.

That's because we are only one FCC commissioner away from re-instituting "the Fairness Doctrine", which would effectively wipe out free speech on TV and radio.

And we are only one Supreme Court justice away from having a "living constitution" - i.e. a "dead as a doornail" constitution.

No minor party candidate would have any chance of defeating the Democrat. And any vote for one simply drains away a vote that would (or should) otherwise go to the Repubican, where it would have a chance of helping to keep the Democrats out of power.

While none of the leading Republicans are great for the 2A, ALL of the leading Democrats are POISON for the 2A.

So if someone sits on their hands or votes for the "Slow Wheat Party" candidate, and the Democrats seize power forever and drive a stake through the constitution's heart, I don't want to hear them complaining.

Frankie, I don't care to engage in an unending debate.

Not too many years ago, I thought that "reasonable gun control" was reasonable. I realized that it doesn't work, and the costs exceed the benefits. Compromise with the enemies of freedom means giving them some now and some more later.

I have said what I have to say. Lurkers can decide for themselves.

- Jim