GOP right to slow down guns (on campus) bill (Tennessee)

[jpak]

http://www.dnj.com/article/20110522/OPINION01/105220330

<snip>

Administrators at Tennessee's public colleges and universities, along with their security staffs, are adamantly opposed to HB2016/SB0399.

The legislation would force them to allow faculty members and other employees with permits to carry their guns anywhere on their campuses at all times of the day and night.

Unlike legislation that opened parks to people with guns on their person, which allowed local governments to opt out and declare their parks gun-free, the guns-on-campus bill allows for no exceptions.

Thanks to some sober reflection and strong protests by school officials, both the Senate and House have tabled the bill until at least next year. In the meantime, it will be the subject of a summer study.

<more>

[RSillsbee]

1. Surely w/ over 70 colleges in America that allow concealed carry

you can find at least some instances of a permit holder causing problems on campus



which allowed local governments to opt out and declare their parks gun-free

Declaring the parks gun free and making the parks gun free ar two different things

[Starboard Tack]

2. For many people, carrying a gun is the problem

You don't have to shoot someone to be a problem

[lawodevolution]

3. Or in other words you can't think of one legitimate reason

[rrneck]

4. That's their problem. nt

[Starboard Tack]

7. Apparantly. nt

[spin]

5. So I am a problem because I legally carry a concealed firearm? ...

I've had a concealed weapons permit for over fifteen years and I doubt that anyone has known that I was carrying when they talked to me in public and that includes police.

I obviously have never misused my firearm or I would have been arrested. My carry weapon has never left its holster while in public. I have never intimidated anyone in anyway because no one ever knew that I had a hidden firearm.

Please explain to me how I am a problem.

[Starboard Tack]

8. You've been around here long enough to know why many people

consider CC a problem. Personally, I couldn't care less if you, as an individual want to take the risk of carrying a loaded weapon around with you. I understand that, somehow, you've convinced yourself that it may come in handy some day, even though it hasn't in 15 years, but who knows? It is your choice. If you think the pros outweigh the cons, good luck. I hope you never get the opportunity to have to find out. Regardless of you, or any other individual here who likes to tote, I think the out of control proliferation of guns in public places is symbolic of a society that has given up on itself. There will always be those of us who fear the unknown and those who prey on the weak, but the notion that carrying a gun is going to act as some kind of equalizer is an illusion.IMO

[spin]

9. Actually I have a hard time understanding the objection to licensed concealed carry ...

that some who post in the gungeon have.

To me it seems to be an emotional reaction to firearms in general. I suspect that for some this hatred is based on tragic incidents that have happened in the past that dramatically influenced their life. Others may dislike firearms because of unfamiliarity or because of misinformation and propaganda pushed by the main stream media.

The facts and statistics show that "shall issue" concealed carry has caused very few problems in the states where the law passed and may actually have helped to change the nature of crime in some areas. At a minimum allowing honest people to carry concealed did not cause the violent crime rate to increase.

I can understand why many people who dislike firearms would dislike open carry. Such people see open carry as blatant "in your face" intimidation. Concealed carry is entirely different. Nobody fears me because I have a weapon, nor would I want them to. They have no idea that I have a firearm and I have no plans of brandishing it.

I don't understand your contention that "society has given up on itself" because some choose to legally carry firearms in public. To me it just means that some people prefer to take responsibility for their own safety. Many people take self defense courses. Have they also given up on society?

As far as your contention that a concealed weapon is not an equalizer, I can only wish that you could talk to my deceased mother who died at the ripe old age of 89. When she was much younger, she used a .22 caliber revolver to deter a much larger attacker who rushed her from some bushes after she got off a bus in a remote area. She fired two shots over his head and he ran in the other direction.

[eqfan592]

10. Excelent post, spin. (nt)

[spin]

13. Thanks for your support. (n/t)

[RSillsbee]

12. I've been carrying since the day I got out of the Army (AD)

in 95 in all that time mt gun has "come in handy" twice ( Once for a mugger and once for a dying deer)

I consider the investment to have paid off

[PavePusher]

6. Ummm, so they are being a problem....

by not being a problem?

:crazy:

[X_Digger]

14. How does it feel to be in the same mindset as Robert Bork?

As writer Dan Baum said in a recent Harper's article (August, 2010)..

.....My friends who are appalled by the thought of widespread concealed weapons aren't impressed by this argument, or by the research demonstrating no ill effects of the shall-issue revolution. "I don't care," said one. "I don't feel safe knowing that people are walking around with guns. What about my right to feel safe? Doesn't that count for anything?"

Robert Bork tried out that argument in 1971, in defense of prosecuting such victimless crimes as drug abuse, writing in the Indiana Law Journal that “knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral.”

It’s as bad an argument now as it was then. We may not like it that other people are doing things we revile—smoking pot, enjoying pornography, making gay love, or carrying a gun—but if we aren’t adversely affected by it, the Constitution and common decency argue for leaving it alone. My friend may feel less safe because people are wearing concealed guns, but the data suggest she isn't less safe....

[Starboard Tack]

17. Robert Bork is a moron and to make the comparison is insulting

I have never used the word immoral when discussing public toting. Nor do I think toting is always unjustified. I'm sure there could be situations when I would consider it prudent. I just haven't felt that need. Apparently some folks feel the need every time they leave home. Go figure. Maybe it's a manifestation of OCD. I don't know, but it fascinates me.

[rl6214]

20. Either you carry a gun all the time or none of the time

If you only carry part time you will not have the proper mindset when you are carrying.

[Starboard Tack]

21. Sounds like a black and white world to me.

[X_Digger]

22. "carrying a gun is the problem"

No, you don't use the word immoral, but you can't really describe the criteria when it's okay for someone to carry, only giving some vague examples.

I'm left with the conclusion that you don't want anyone to carry, yet you can't point to anything saying why- hence some vague moral objection.

Spit it out, eh?

[rrneck]

23. Yep

Such unthinking rationalizations are the seeds of tyranny.

[Starboard Tack]

24. Morals don't enter into it. You are the one who must decide.

I would prefer that nobody carry in public. I think that would be the ideal for everyone, but obviously, that isn't realistic. So, each individual must decide for himself. It isn't a case of morality, but rather common sense. If you truly feel threatened, then you should take the necessary steps to reduce that threat. Obviously, your choice is to carry a gun. I find it hard to believe that 10 million people in this country feel so threatened they need to tote in public. Sounds like they're over adapting to their perceived fears and acting rather foolishly, as a consequence. Not all 10 million, but probably 9+. On the other hand, maybe they're right and I'm the idiot.

[X_Digger]

25. You've advocated taking away that choice, except in the case of vague criteria..

One the other hand, I endorse concrete criteria and letting people choose for themselves.

Your method pretends to allow people to choose, while denying that choice as frequently as possible- all because you prefer nobody carry in public.

At least have the nerve to stand up and say what you mean, rather than hiding behind false choice.

[Starboard Tack]

26. People will always choose for themselves.

That doesn't mean it is a civil right. I maintain that carrying a gun in public is decidedly uncivil behavior, even when justified. It isn't "my method" that allows people to choose. Each of us decides for him/herself. That is a fact, regardless of what the law or constitution says. Obviously, any sane person would wish for a peaceful, crime free and gun free society, but that is not the reality we live in. Most of us choose to navigate this world without carrying a gun around. Others choose differently, in the belief that arming themselves will better their lives. Enacting laws does little to change their minds, but it is an attempt to stop a lot of foolishness.
I hide behind nothing. I embrace life and whatever it brings.

[X_Digger]

27. "keep and *bear*"..

Whether or not you consider something 'uncivilized' has no bearing on whether that activity is a civil right. Don't conflate your preference with the law.

[Starboard Tack]

28. Bear means different things to different people

Laws vary from place to place. And exercising a "civil right" doesn't necessarily make it civil. The KKK does it all the time. I'm not trying to take away any civil rights, but rather influence their behavior by having a conversation. The world is full of rational people who behave irrationally.

[X_Digger]

29. Let's see what Justice Ginsberg has to say on the matter..

Muscarello v US, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) -

“surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment indicates: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ”

[Starboard Tack]

30. And she is entitled to her opinion same as you and I are

Doesn't make any of us right or wrong. Just opinions that vary. 2A says bear but it doesn't say where, except in a well organized militia.

[X_Digger]

31. Lol.. not this dead horse again..

"well regulated" at the time, and in this context meant 'well functioning'-

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/WellRegulatedinold%20literature.pdf

In Item 1, Anne Newport Royall commented in 1822 that Huntsville, Alabama was becoming quite civilized and prosperous, with a “fine fire engine” and a “well regulated company”. I suppose one could make the case that the firefighters were especially subject to rules and laws, but the passage is more coherent if read, “They have a very fine fire engine, and a properly operating company.”

William Thackary’s 1848 novel (item 4) uses the term “well-regulated person”. The story is that of Major Dobbin, who had been remiss in visiting his family. Thackary’s comment is to the effect that any well-regulated person would blame the major for this. Clearly, in this context, well-regulated has nothing to do with government rules and laws. It can only be interpreted as “properly operating” or “ideal state”.

In 1861, author George Curtis (item 5), has one of his characters, apparently a moneyhungry person, praising his son for being sensible, and carefully considering money in making his marriage plans. He states that “every well-regulated person considers the matter from a pecuniary point of view.” Again, this cannot logically be interpreted as a person especially subject to government control. It can only be read as “properly operating”.

Edmund Yates certainly has to be accepted as an articulate and educated writer, quite capable of properly expressing his meaning. In 1884 (item 6), he references a person who was apparently not “strictly well-regulated”. The context makes any reading other that “properly operating” or “in his ideal state” impossible.

Secondly, let's look at the preamble to the Bill of Rights-

The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The Bill of Rights was intended as a 'the government shall not' document- "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"- not a 'the people can' document. Rights aren't limited by the bill of rights; rather the scope of protections of certain rights are set. If the Bill of Rights were a listing of all a person's rights, there would be no need for the ninth and tenth amendments ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." respectively.)

And finally, let's look at the second amendment itself-

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.

Who does the right belong to? The militia? No, the people. See US v. Verdugo-Urquirdez for the salient definition of 'the people'.

Grammatically this can be broken down into two clauses- a prefatory clause and an operative clause. Similar wording can be found in other writing of the time, though it's fallen out of favor these days. For comparison, see Rhode Island's constitution, Article I, Section 20- "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject..". That construction- '{reason}, {statement}' exists today, but we usually swap the clauses- "I'm going to the supermarket, I'm completely out of soda." or we add in a 'because' or 'since'- "Since I'm completely out of soda, I'm going to the supermarket." or "I'm going to the supermarket because I'm completely out of soda."

I know that complex English is lost in today's twitter-ful and facebook-y terseness, but it really does pay to read older documents when you want to analyze what a sentence from that era actually means.

So with the point from the first section, the second section in mind, and rearranging the clauses per the third would yield a modern restatement of the second amendment as-

"Because a well functioning militia is necessary to state security, the government shall not interfere with the right of the people to be armed."

or

"The government shall not interfere with the right of the people to be armed because a well functioning militia is necessary to state security."

Nothing in either of those statements says that arms are only for militia service, rather the ability to raise an effective militia is _why_ protecting the right to be armed is protected. Since we know from the preamble (and the 9th/10th amendment) that the bill of rights is not exhaustive, we have to look outside the bill of rights itself to see if the founding fathers expected this right to extend beyond militia service.

State analogues of the second amendment that were adopted in the same timeframe give a clue-

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/WhatStateConstitutionsTeach.htm (sections rearranged by me)

The present-day Pennsylvania Constitution, using language adopted in 1790, declares: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Vermont: Adopted in 1777, the Vermont Constitution closely tracks the Pennsylvania Constitution. It states "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."

Kentucky: The 1792 Kentucky constitution was nearly contemporaneous with the Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791. Kentucky declared: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

Delaware: "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use."

Alabama: The Alabama Constitution, adopted in 1819, guarantees "that every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state"

Arizona and Washington: These states were among the last to be admitted to the Union.* Their right to arms language is identical: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

Illinois: "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."**

(footnotes removed)

So from analagous documents created by many of the same founding fathers or their peers, the individual right unconnected to militia service is fairly well laid out.

* Admittedly, not analogous in time to the others, but still demonstrates the point.
** same

You should read other cases such as US v Cruikshank ("This right is not a right granted by the Constitution . . . neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.") or Presser v Illinois ("the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, as so to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.")

Both the Heller and McDonald decision shed more light on the subject.

[Starboard Tack]

32. Wow, that's a lot of work you did to make a point

Firstly, I would agree that well regulated means well regulated as you, Mr. Thackeray and others define so eloquently.
I also agree that the "right" is awarded to the individual. The "right" awarded that individual is for the purpose of maintaining a militia.
Now, how does that translate to individuals roaming the streets toting guns?

You can cite case law all day long and claim your legal rights, which I don't dispute. Even if there were to be an amending of the Constitution abolishing 2A as it is now perceived by the NRA and toters in general, I don't think it would change people's attitudes or behavior very much. We need to evolve towards a less violent society and I think that may already be happening, in spite of gun proliferation.

I understand that you and others here are heavily invested in your convictions that gun toting is positive and makes life better for everyone. There are those who believe Jesus is their savior and the rapture is coming. Many of the latter woke up yesterday and found themselves still here. I sometimes wonder if toters don't go through that every day.

I have my own insanity to deal with. When I fly commercial, I am responsible for keeping the plane in the air. I do this by concentrating very hard, not praying, more like levitating. I think for me it's a control issue mixed with a fair dose of OCD

[X_Digger]

34. Here's an analogous sentence..

"Tomato sauce being important for the cooking of a fine pizza, and pizza being important to culinary delight, the right of the people to grow and harvest tomatoes shall not be infringed."

That does not say that the only use for tomatoes is pizza sauce. That's why protecting them is important. It in no way limits tomatoes to one purpose.


As mentioned, the bill of rights is a limit on government power- read the preamble.

It's not difficult, unless you're being intentionally obtuse.

[Starboard Tack]

35. I'm totally down with the rights and the tomatoes

but not with the toting all the time everywhere. And the more you guys insist on doing it, the more likely your rights will be restricted because eventually sanity will prevail.

[X_Digger]

36. You're entitled to your opinion. You're more than welcome to advocate for revocation of..

concealed carry.. Hell, I'm a big fan of the quote {mis-}attributed to Voltaire- "I may not like what you say, but I will defend unto death your right to say it."

But it's more than a bit disingenuous to try to justify that opinion with an intentional misrepresentation of how our rights are codified and protected.

It gets really tiresome, frankly. I end up pasting that research at least once a week, most weeks.

[eqfan592]

37. Sanity is prevailing...

...which is why concealed carry has been sweeping the nation for about 2 decades now. And you keep losing credibility when you say its somehow not sane with no statistical evidence to support your position (and loads of statistical information that goes counter to your position).

[Starboard Tack]

38. We disagree. That's OK

I don't believe there is statistical evidence to support either side on this issue and I don't want to get into a pissing contest. There are all kinds of stats to support both sides.

[eqfan592]

39. You are welcome to think however you like.

But please to try to act like your side has an equal level of statistical evidence to support it's position. You don't. You like to think of CCW permit holders as some sort of blight on society, and the fact is that this is simply not the case. Outside of anecdotal evidence, you have no hard statistical data to support your position.

[Starboard Tack]

40. "You like to think of CCW permit holders as some sort of blight on society"

Not true. I see them as victims of a fraud, perpetrated by fear mongers and charlatans, snake oil vendors and the NRA.
They all use statistics to "prove" something to the gullible.
There are 45 million smokers in the US --- 150,000 die annually from lung cancer.
That equals 1 in 300. So smoking is pretty safe?

Every time we adopt a new behavior we cross a line and all too often it is difficult to step back across it.

[eqfan592]

41. 1 in 300 for an activity...

...that serves no useful purpose is a waste. Not only is CCW far safer than that, but it actually can serve a useful purpose in the form of defensive gun usage.


You can try and ignore that reality all you want, but it doesn't change it. They aren't "victims of fraud, perpetrated by fear mongers and charlatans." They are people with a mindset of preparedness and self reliance that you do not have and cannot understand. Not because you are incapable of understanding, but because of the prejudice you have established on the subject.

[Starboard Tack]

43. A good portion of my life has been dedicated to preparedness and self reliance

Toting a handgun has nothing, absolutely ZERO, to do with self reliance. It is the total opposite. My prejudice is against those who are dependent on external factors like guns, drugs, alcohol, oil, the grid, other people.

"Nothing can bring you peace but yourself. Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles."
Ralph Waldo Emerson (Last sentence of his essay Self-Reliance)

[eqfan592]

44. "Toting a handgun has nothing, absolutely ZERO, to do with self reliance."

Bull. Shit. You are welcome to your opinion, and are welcome to not carry. But this sentence is 100% refined bullshit. I use a shovel to dig my car out of the snow because it is more effective than my hands. Does that mean I'm dependent on the shovel? No, I could use my hands if need be, but I recognize that we humans have developed certain technologies that enable us to do certain tasks far more effectively. I can (and have) defend myself with my bare hands if I'm driven to it. Is this the most effective means of doing so? Not even close. Not only does it place me at greater personal risk, but if the person that is attacking me is armed, it leaves me at a huge disadvantage.

I'm very much at peace with my self and my principles. You, however, seem to be otherwise. I don't ask that you do as I do and carry a firearm, only that you leave my right to chose to do so alone.

[Starboard Tack]

46. Wow! What's with all the hostility and anger? You need to chill

I thought we were having a conversation. Sorry if I had you pegged wrong. You said you were going to apply for a permit and had never carried a gun. Now you say that you carry a firearm. WTF is that all about? Now you're talking about shovels and snow. What's that got to do with wearing a gun all the time? I have no interest in interfering with anyone's rights.

[PavePusher]

48. Hostility? Anger? Where?

He simply refuted your assertion, bluntly, with an analogy.

You are seeing something that isn't there.

[Starboard Tack]

50. He's handling the conversation very well by himself.

I'm sure he'll ask for help when he needs it.

[eqfan592]

51. Lol, sorry for the confussion...

...my last sentence of my last post did imply that I carried, which was not my intention (had to re-read the entire post to figure out where I contradicted myself). It should have read "and choose to carry a gun," which IS what I am doing. But you are correct in that I never have carried a gun before.

I'm not angry nor hostile, and as Pave pointed out, the bit about the shovel was simply an analogy.

[Glassunion]

45. A beautiful poet, who I enjoy reading... However I don't agree 100% with him.

"Unarmed, faced danger with a heart of trust" - Forbearance

Both your quote and mine speak of going into a dangerous situation with only your courage and the belief that all people are good to protect you. You didn’t give in to the urge to bring a weapon. Come what may, you will go down with your morals intact.

I speak from experience that all people are not good. That all people will not protect you. Yet my morals will remain intact.

But if we must quote... My favorite is: "Adopt the pace of nature: her secret is patience." This is carved in a small stone in our garden.

[Starboard Tack]

47. Nice post. Beautiful quotes.

Sounds like your heart is in a good place. I agree that all people are not good, but I believe there is good in all people. The challenge is finding it and bringing it to the surface, not often easy, but very rewarding when successful.

[PavePusher]

42. A Right is not "awarded", it belongs to you by virtue of your existance.

It can be restricted or denied via leagal due process means, or by illegal constraint.

[armueller2001]

49. Do you feel that someone

carrying a knife, taser, or mace for self defense is also "uncivil behavior"?

[RSillsbee]

15. So, what I'm hearing you say is you want to deny

people their civil liberties (Even though you can't show any real, measurable harm)based on a feeling.

Is that about what you meant?
TYPO

[Starboard Tack]

18. Maybe that's why you carry a gun

because you hear things that aren't being said. I don't want to deny anyone their civil liberties. How do you manage to extrapolate that from what I said?

[WatsonT]

33. Yep, people not breaking the law sure is a real problem

have to crack down on that ASAP.

[eqfan592]

11. That's unfortunate.

It's never good when irrational and unfounded fears put a stop to good legislation, especially legislation that expands civil liberties.

[Euromutt]

16. Wait, if a Republican does something, aren't you supposed to disapprove by default?

You know, post "GOP sux, yup yup yup" or something to that effect? Or are you only opposed to the GOP when they don't support your particular hobby-horse?

[rl6214]

19. Wait wait wait wait wait

Where's your normal GOP/NRA shtick? You can't possibly be posting something the GOP did that you agree with, can you?

Unrec for the hypocracy.