• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another Second Amendment win in California

Okay so we're whittling this down. These natural laws only apply to American citizens. These natural laws don't apply in places like Canada and Germany.



Okay so every American has the right to...carry a gun? So why have so many municipalities and states placed restrictions on this right for so many years? Even in Florida you need a permit to carry a concealed gun. If it's a right guaranteed under the Constitution how can a state restrict it? How can it be like all other rights? Do you need a permit to exercise freedom of speech in Florida? Do you forfeit your right to free speech if you're a convicted felon?

Does natural law only protect open carry, not concealed carry? Why is that?

I've got an example at hand that will blow your mind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Shannon

Tommy Shannon of Texas, bass player for Johnny Winter early on (fired for drug abuse) later the Bassist for SRV.

During the 1970s, Shannon became involved with drugs, and began a cycle of jail, probation and rehab that would last for some time.[1] He played with the Austin band The Fools briefly. Due to recurring drug arrests and failure of rehab in San Antonio and other locations, Shannon was finally sent to a "farm" in Buda and, as a result of his probation on release, he was not allowed join any bands because of the pervasiveness of drugs in the music scene. Shannon became a bricklayer for a few years until he was eventually able to return to music in 1977. He played in a few unknown bands, then received a call from Rocky Hill, brother of ZZ Top's Dusty Hill. He moved to Houston to play with Hill and Uncle John, and in the late 1970s went on to play with Alan Haynes in the "Texas Boogie Band" (Shannon later played on Haynes' well received 1994 release, "Wishing Well"). Shannon also toured, opening for Bachman–Turner Overdrive and for KISS at the Warehouse in New Orleans.

A musician banned from playing music. Only in Texas.
 
The current live fire testing requirements for license issuance in the county where I was involved with the training and re-quals is exactly that, strong, weak, draw, reloads. I'd prefer a longer classroom phase.

As to what a use of force incident might develop into, it would be nice if everything was predestined by average engagement distances and rounds fired, but life doesn't work in that fashion.

I'm not aware of any civilian use-of-force encounters on the street that developed into flat out Hollywood movie shootouts, but I know of two home invasions that did, with fatalities (in one incident, unfortunately the homeowner was one of them) and a friend of mine that was an FFL dealer lived through an armed robbery attempt at his shop that went through 9 rounds of 00 buck and had to transition to his carry pistol to finish the job. That was the story I was looking for a link to when I posted above about criminals avoiding armed victims.
I really don't see how that justifies requiring such extensive training for everybody. Besides, the metric for constraining the exercising of a civil right is when exercising that right infringes on the rights of others. For example, when Occupy Wall Street was camping in parks they were denying others of their right to use the park. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire puts other at risk of injury or death from the panicked stampede for the exits. I don't see how requiring the training you call for can be justified legally.
 
...The line of reasoning that you're using is simply false. Just because felons can be stripped of some rights doesn't make those rights not rights. No right is absolute and no one (here) is arguing that the right to bear arms should be absolute.

The line of reasoning I'm using is not what you're assuming it is.

The statement was made that the right to carry a gun is like every other right. I asked:

Even in Florida you need a permit to carry a concealed gun. If it's a right guaranteed under the Constitution how can a state restrict it? How can it be like all other rights? Do you need a permit to exercise freedom of speech in Florida?


I have been trying to show that gun rights have a long history of being restricted by legislation. That they are still being restricted even in places that are considered "friendly" to gun owners. That the right to carry a gun is therefore NOT like every other right.
 
...Some of the Supreme Court's decisions have been a bit startling, yes, but expressing incredulity about those decisions is not much of an argument, especially when you're the one who cited that decision in the first place...

You missed my point entirely. I was expressing amazement that after all the gun threads in these pages only now have we arrived at the argument that it is 'natural law' that permits Americans to carry guns for self-defense. You would think the advocates would have been arguing that all along.

Citing 'natural law' sounds like right-wing fantasy to me, yes. YMMV
 
No one here is claiming the 2nd Amendment grants the right to keep and bear arms any more then the 1st Amendment grants the right to free speech, assembly, and religion. Rather it recognizes those rights already exist, and cannot be infringed by Congress.

That is the plain meaning of the way the BoR is written, it's a restriction on the powers of Congress it does not grant rights to the people.

Where do these "rights" come from then? God? Cthulhu?
 
I really don't see how that justifies requiring such extensive training for everybody. Besides, the metric for constraining the exercising of a civil right is when exercising that right infringes on the rights of others. For example, when Occupy Wall Street was camping in parks they were denying others of their right to use the park. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire puts other at risk of injury or death from the panicked stampede for the exits. I don't see how requiring the training you call for can be justified legally.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

There are more people on your side of the fence than mine including most LEO's (many cops never practice, and only shoot for requals), but I was raised to believe, and I do believe, that practice and training is the key foundation of building expertise in any discipline, and self defense in public areas is something I'd rather have practiced by individuals that are trained to a standard, not a minimum.

FTR, nobody I've ever trained (mil. or LE) that had to use their skills has confronted me after the fact and complained I didn't prepare them, but a few guys have written me their thanks. Those letters mean much to me.
 
Where do these "rights" come from then? God? Cthulhu?

It's not rocket science.

I'm sure that there are smarter cats than I that have a degree in philosophy that can put it into better words, but "I" exist. No other individual has the right to deprive me of my existence unless "I" instigate violent attack upon their person.

If "I" am subject to attack and use force to protect my right to exist, and that other individual loses their life in the incident, it's up to the social and/or judicial structures in the area to determine if what I did was justified under the customs or laws of this same area. If it's determined "I" acted within the custom or law, "I" face no punishment.

If it goes the other way, 'I" am subject to whatever punishment the society sees fit.

No God, no FSM or mother-may-I,

Humans have an intrinsic right of self defense.
 
Last edited:
I'm completely on board with wanting anyone who is carrying a gun to have been taught how to safely handle that firearm, mainly because i don't want to accidentally get shot. Background checks - great. Pictures and prints - I have to think about that a little more. Though not a hardcore libertarian I feel unease about innocent people being fingerprinted and this being kept on record. Pictures I don't have such an issue with. You need one to get a drivers license, so why not to carry a gun concealed?

Where i have more of an issue is with mandatory classroom instruction and range qualification. These things are costly. This cost is naturally borne by the person wanting to carry a gun, right? That means that, with taxes and fees and licensing and who knows what else, the government at whatever level has a way to place de facto gun control on poorer communities by simply pricing them out of the opportunity of qualifying for a permit.

Gun owner here. I'm all for background checks for purchases. This is already law in Vermont and New Hampshire, and only a few oddballs have issues with it. I'm also for mandatory safety classes. While having a full-blown classroom instruction and range qualification would be nice, I believe, at minimum, there be a mandatory one-day safety class that one must pass. If nothing else, this may help weed out the worst of idiots who want a gun; the same individuals one reads about in the news about having shot themselves with the excuse "I thought it wasn't loaded!"
 
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Fairly clear where at least one fellow thought that "Rights" come from.
 
Gun owner here. I'm all for background checks for purchases. This is already law in Vermont and New Hampshire, and only a few oddballs have issues with it. I'm also for mandatory safety classes. While having a full-blown classroom instruction and range qualification would be nice, I believe, at minimum, there be a mandatory one-day safety class that one must pass. If nothing else, this may help weed out the worst of idiots who want a gun; the same individuals one reads about in the news about having shot themselves with the excuse "I thought it wasn't loaded!"
Nice poisoning the well fallacy ya got there.
 
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Fairly clear where at least one fellow thought that "Rights" come from.

Okay keep going. Until you get to the part "...the right to carry a gun for lawful self-defense..." :)
 
Okay keep going. Until you get to the part "...the right to carry a gun for lawful self-defense..." :)

Well, let's hear from you exactly what the right to self defense means in your interpretation, and how does the right differ between a LEO and a civilian (Hint, that duty weapon isn't intended to enforce the law, it's to protect life, first the LEO, then others)
 
You missed my point entirely. I was expressing amazement that after all the gun threads in these pages only now have we arrived at the argument that it is 'natural law' that permits Americans to carry guns for self-defense. You would think the advocates would have been arguing that all along.

Citing 'natural law' sounds like right-wing fantasy to me, yes. YMMV

Citing your ignorance of an argument doesn't evidence that the argument didn't exist. You do understand that, right?

Have you ever studied American history? The founding documents were very heavily influenced by the Enlightenment movement - among the core tenets being that humans are endowed with natural law rights. The term natural law was used as not to identify with Protestantism, Catholicism, Deism or Atheism because those were all dangerous subjects according to one's particular geography. For many authors, it was code for atheism in a time when promoting atheism wasn't the best survival tactic.

Natural law -- outside revolution, insurrection or civil disobedience -- doesn't trump statutory law. Common law in very many instances, does. The common law shares much in common with natural law but is much older. The terms get conflated often because our founders drew so heavily on this Enlightenment concept.
 
Humans have an intrinsic right of self defense.

True, but it doesn't engage until after they have taken every other opportunity to avoid conflict, including tucking tail and running away whenever someone looks like they might escalate violence towards yourself and/or others who are equally capable of avoiding conflict. IOW, anyone who feels more confident carrying a gun, probably shouldn't (feel confidence or carry a gun).
 
True, but it doesn't engage until after they have taken every other opportunity to avoid conflict, including tucking tail and running away whenever someone looks like they might escalate violence towards yourself and/or others who are equally capable of avoiding conflict. IOW, anyone who feels more confident carrying a gun, probably shouldn't (feel confidence or carry a gun).
So disabled people who cannot run away and are often seen as easy targets, should not feel confidence that they may be able to protect themselves. Great philosophy you have there.
 
I'm doing a quote dump so read at your leisure about what the founders thought, people contemporary to the founders, and courts throughout the last few hundred years regarding what was meant by the 2nd amendment.

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker


"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)


"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams


"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson


"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington


"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

"...the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" (from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2,)

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]

For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]

" `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff." [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]

"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)]

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

 
Well, let's hear from you exactly what the right to self defense means in your interpretation...

I interpret it as the rights you have under the law to defend yourself. I would say it varies from place to place. (Duty to retreat, castle doctrine, stand your ground, etc.) What I'm talking about is this assertion that people have the right to carry a gun under natural law. That the Second Amendment doesn't grant this right it only recognizes it.

Citing your ignorance of an argument doesn't evidence that the argument didn't exist. You do understand that, right?..

My ignorance of an argument. That's an interesting choice of words. Does natural law exist within the law or is it only an argument you're making? I'm citing the fact that all through these discussions all the pro-gun advocates have been citing the Second Amendment. Now all of a sudden you're citing "natural law."

Why do you bring this up now? Why not last week or last month or last year?
 
True, but it doesn't engage until after they have taken every other opportunity to avoid conflict, including tucking tail and running away whenever someone looks like they might escalate violence towards yourself and/or others who are equally capable of avoiding conflict. IOW, anyone who feels more confident carrying a gun, probably shouldn't (feel confidence or carry a gun).

Not even in California. You have no duty to retreat when faced with a threat, lethal or otherwise, but I've always advised students and others to avoid any situation that has even a hint of the possibility of escalation.
 
I'm doing a quote dump so read at your leisure about what the founders thought, people contemporary to the founders, and courts throughout the last few hundred years regarding what was meant by the 2nd amendment.

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker


"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)


"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams


"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson


"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington


"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

"...the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" (from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2,)

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]

For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]

" `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff." [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]

"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)]

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]


These opinions are expressions of only a couple of the Founders, not all. (Off topic - Whose your favorite Founding Father?) The law cases, with one or two exceptions, are all state cases from the 19th century. It's not clear from your citations that the quotes are from the argument or the decision.

There's no link. Where did you copy these from?
 
These opinions are expressions of only a couple of the Founders, not all.
That's true. I'm hoping it would prompt you to do some research yourself and find some founders who didn't believe in the natural right of self-defense which included firearms.


(Off topic - Whose your favorite Founding Father?)
That's a very good question and, to be honest, I really don't know. There were many who were eloquent and passionate writers that I admire them all, even if I do not agree with them all.


The law cases, with one or two exceptions, are all state cases from the 19th century. It's not clear from your citations that the quotes are from the argument or the decision.
Yes, you're right. Frankly, I have only quote-mined so (shrug) one may take them or leave them.


There's no link. Where did you copy these from?
From various websites after a quick google. None of the sites were more comprehensive than that.

I do appreciate you making the effort in reading them and responding, so thank you.
 

Back
Top Bottom