NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/sci/skeptic/19090

Text File | 1992-11-06 | 4.0 KB | 98 lines

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!att-out!cbfsb!cbnewsb.cb.att.com!colten
From: [e-mail] (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Summary: How to Lose your RKBA
Keywords: None
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: AT&T
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 03:51:43 GMT
Lines: 84

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Joshua_Putnam) writes:
> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (marc.colten) writes:
>
> >In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Thomas Carter) writes:
>
> >1)  A 12 year old boy takes his father's pistol to school with him.
> >    Can school officials take it away?
>
> The boy is violating Federal law by carrying the pistol to
> school, so even if the states had no power to regulate the
> carrying of concealed weapons, the gun can be taken and the
> boy arrested.

Where does it say in the constitution that the federal government
can decide who is old enough to have a gun, and where they can take
it?  I though the RKBA was above regulation?

>
> >2)  A violent criminal is released on bail.  His first stop is
> >    a gun store - can he be forbidden to buy the gun?
>
> Criminals may not buy guns under Federal and State laws, so
> they usually don't shop for guns at gun stores.

Where does it say in the constitution that the federal government
can decide that you lose your right to RKBA just becuase you
were convicted of a state crime (like murder)?  As for criminals
not buying in gun stores - all becuase of rules that say they can't.
Under a strict interpretation of the RKBA (yours not mine) they
should be able to.


>
> >3)  I rent an apartment overlooking a schoolyard.  Early one morning
> >    I screw down the tripod of an automatic weapon to the window sill,
> >    attach the gun so it points down towards the schoolyard,
> >    and sit there by the gun, smiling, waiting for recess.  Can
> >    anyone make me not do this?
>
> First off, you'll need a very expensive license for an
> automatic, and the background check is quite thorough, so
> it's unlikely you'll have this gun legally.  Also, the
> manufacture and importation of automatics for civilian use
> is illegal, so the existing stock is much more expensive
> than semiautomatic weapons of equivalent quality.
>
First - I got the money.  Second the background check is fine
I'm nuts, but I've never been to a psychiatrist or jail.  As for
the the illegality of those guns is just another government
interfence in the RKBA, right? So we're living in your world,
I've got the gun, do you stop me from what I'm doing?

> Second, while you certainly have a right to keep and bear
> arms (if you aren't menatlly unstable or a convict,
> alcoholic, or drug addict, etc.), this does not give you the
> right to brandish those arms in public.  Threatening
> behavior like what you describe is not protected by the 2nd
> Amendment any more than fraud is protected by the 1st.  You
> will probably be arrested and possibly sent off for
> psychological evaluation.
>
Oddly another message implied that I had the right to do just
that until I fire - guess I should vote for that guy, not you.
He said the worst I was doing was "disturbing the peace".

> >4)  You like to ride on public transportation, holding your Magnum
> >    in your hand.  Is this against any law?  Occasionally you playfully
> >    point it at an old lady and "Pow!  Pow!".  Is this legal?
>
> Again, publicly brandishing your weapons is illegal.  You're
> disturbing the peace and probably committing assault, too.
>
same as above.

> None of the scanarios you outline requires any new laws, or
> even most of the laws already enacted.

And yet all the arguing has been that these laws mean to restrict
gun ownership as unconstitutional. It is my argument that they
are not.  Which side are you on?


marc colten