2nd Amendment

subllibrm

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
5,975
Reaction score
6
Points
38
It is often said that the 2nd is there to enforce/protect the 1st. Would that not also be true for the rest of them?
 

sword

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
3,488
Reaction score
32
Points
48
subllibrm said:
It is often said that the 2nd is there to enforce/protect the 1st. Would that not also be true for the rest of them?
Common logic would dictate that is true. I fear the day may soon arrive that I need a gun to protect me from violent mob protesters.

Our founders recognized the basic need to defend oneself, ones family and their state and nation. They also affirmed the need to defend oneself from their out of control tyranical govt. They also feared a standing Army which occupied the nation. They preferred the reserve system where the national Army remained small and citizens would be called upon from the populace when needed.
 

Smellin Coffee

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 29, 2013
Messages
7,814
Reaction score
1
Points
36
subllibrm said:
It is often said that the 2nd is there to enforce/protect the 1st. Would that not also be true for the rest of them?
One would think.

However, the 4th Amendment can legally be violated thanks to Reagan's "War on Drugs", where Operation Pipeline gives police the right to target people without cause for suspicion, in their search for illegal narcotics. But if the wrong person were to carry a weapon, or something that looks like a weapon, the officer is in his right to "shoot first", even in open-carry states (Hello, Tamir Rice and Keith Scott).

But remember, the "right to bear arms" as an individual was for the purpose of militia, not personal protection, according to the 2nd Amendment.
 

Recovering IFB

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Aug 11, 2012
Messages
2,139
Reaction score
0
Points
36
sword said:
They also affirmed the need to defend oneself from their out of control tyranical govt. They also feared a standing Army which occupied the nation.
Which I would make an argument that today's standing army is the police force in our country.
 

Smellin Coffee

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 29, 2013
Messages
7,814
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Recovering IFB said:
sword said:
They also affirmed the need to defend oneself from their out of control tyranical govt. They also feared a standing Army which occupied the nation.
Which I would make an argument that today's standing army is the police force in our country.
It is certainly heading that way, if not there already.
 

subllibrm

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
5,975
Reaction score
6
Points
38
If the police do a no knock raid we are thrilled. Unless they do it to me.

Smellin' brought up the 4th. Can anyone explain (and by explain, I really mean justify) why the police can seize property when making an arrest but do not have to give it back if it turns out that the arrest was in error? Is that not a clear violation of the 4th?
 

Recovering IFB

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Aug 11, 2012
Messages
2,139
Reaction score
0
Points
36
It was never the Founding Fathers intent on having a standing army and until the 1870's. There was no "professional police force" in America. They basically work as revenue generators for the states. They don't protect and serve, if they did, instead of executing eloborate speed traps, they should be executing the traps to catch criminals in the act.
 

subllibrm

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
5,975
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Recovering IFB said:
It was never the Founding Fathers intent on having a standing army and until the 1870's. There was no "professional police force" in America. They basically work as revenue generators for the states. They don't protect and serve, if they did, instead of executing eloborate speed traps, they should be executing the traps to catch criminals in the act.
Funny thing about how people think; we will say making more laws won't cause people to be good yet we call for more law enforcement officers to bring about peace (or something or other).
 

Smellin Coffee

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 29, 2013
Messages
7,814
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Recovering IFB said:
It was never the Founding Fathers intent on having a standing army and until the 1870's. There was no "professional police force" in America. They basically work as revenue generators for the states. They don't protect and serve, if they did, instead of executing eloborate speed traps, they should be executing the traps to catch criminals in the act.
The "professional police force" got it's start in rounding up runaway slaves.

A Brief History of Slavery and the Origins of American Policing
 

Smellin Coffee

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 29, 2013
Messages
7,814
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Another 2nd Amendment question.

Should felons who have not been convicted of violent crimes, be allowed to carry a weapon despite their arrest record? Or should any felony be reason enough to take away one's right to carry a gun? Constitutionally speaking, that is...
 

subllibrm

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
5,975
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Recovering IFB said:
sword said:
They also affirmed the need to defend oneself from their out of control tyranical govt. They also feared a standing Army which occupied the nation.
Which I would make an argument that today's standing army is the police force in our country.
I would agree. My little town of 4000 has an MRAP and full auto weapons. You never know when the Halloween hijinks are going to get out of control.
 

subllibrm

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
5,975
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Smellin Coffee said:
Another 2nd Amendment question.

Should felons who have not been convicted of violent crimes, be allowed to carry a weapon despite their arrest record? Or should any felony be reason enough to take away one's right to carry a gun? Constitutionally speaking, that is...
Most rights are restored upon release but 2nd amendment rights are permanently terminated after a federal felony.
 

sword

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
3,488
Reaction score
32
Points
48
Recovering IFB said:
It was never the Founding Fathers intent on having a standing army and until the 1870's. There was no "professional police force" in America. They basically work as revenue generators for the states. They don't protect and serve, if they did, instead of executing eloborate speed traps, they should be executing the traps to catch criminals in the act.
Posse Comitatus Act:  has been very effective a limiting the use of military in the U.S. There have been very few cases where the govt. were in violation. I am all for this law but would be fine with the U.S. military patrolling a 1 mile wide stretch along the southern border to assist border patrol. Until we get a wall for the protection of both US and Mexican citizens.
 

Smellin Coffee

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 29, 2013
Messages
7,814
Reaction score
1
Points
36
subllibrm said:
Smellin Coffee said:
Another 2nd Amendment question.

Should felons who have not been convicted of violent crimes, be allowed to carry a weapon despite their arrest record? Or should any felony be reason enough to take away one's right to carry a gun? Constitutionally speaking, that is...
Most rights are restored upon release but 2nd amendment rights are permanently terminated after a federal felony.
Which means, if a person from the hood was convicted of say, distribution of marijuana, why should he lose his rights to carry a gun? Suppose that person living in the hood wanted a piece to protect himself or his family, being that he is living in the most dangerous part of the city. Wouldn't that mean he would try to obtain a weapon illegally for protection? And what if he gets caught? He would be doing the SAME THING as the white, suburbanite from the gated community who wants to keep prowlers off his property. If the police approach each of them, guess who gets thrown in the slammer when both are doing the same thing? (One simply has a license to carry and the other is prohibited from getting the same license.) Both want to defend themselves and family yet the one who lives in the unsafe neighborhood is the one who gets locked up.
 

sword

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
3,488
Reaction score
32
Points
48
Recovering IFB said:
It was never the Founding Fathers intent on having a standing army and until the 1870's. There was no "professional police force" in America. They basically work as revenue generators for the states. They don't protect and serve, if they did, instead of executing eloborate speed traps, they should be executing the traps to catch criminals in the act.
I feel safe at night because we have a vigilent police force in my community. talk to people in the inner city neighborhoods where the police rarely patrol and see how safe you feel.

In 99.999% of the time if you do not break the law nothing bad will happen between you and the police..
If you obey the law or if you follow the police instructions  when you are detained / stopped the chances of being hurt are very slim. Of the estimated 69.9 million encounters with the police each year how many obeyed the cops and were still shot.

Excessive force needs to be dealt with but if you obey you are not likely to get hurt. Every one I know who is anti cop re people who often break the law. Fines keep my taxes low and provide needed services to the community. Around me you have to be going 10 over to get stopped. If I get stopped doing 10 over I deserve a ticket. Several places in my community, where the speed limit was excessively low, raised the limit after citizens requested it. Remember local govt works for you and you and there is power in numbers.
 

Smellin Coffee

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 29, 2013
Messages
7,814
Reaction score
1
Points
36
sword said:
Recovering IFB said:
It was never the Founding Fathers intent on having a standing army and until the 1870's. There was no "professional police force" in America. They basically work as revenue generators for the states. They don't protect and serve, if they did, instead of executing eloborate speed traps, they should be executing the traps to catch criminals in the act.
I feel safe at night because we have a vigilent police force in my community. talk to people in the inner city neighborhoods where the police rarely patrol and see how safe you feel.

In 99.999% of the time if you do not break the law nothing bad will happen between you and the police..
If you obey the law or if you follow the police instructions  when you are detained / stopped the chances of being hurt are very slim. Of the estimated 69.9 million encounters with the police each year how many obeyed the cops and were still shot.

Excessive force needs to be dealt with but if you obey you are not likely to get hurt. Every one I know who is anti cop re people who often break the law. Fines keep my taxes low and provide needed services to the community. Around me you have to be going 10 over to get stopped. If I get stopped doing 10 over I deserve a ticket. Several places in my community, where the speed limit was excessively low, raised the limit after citizens requested it. Remember local govt works for you and you and there is power in numbers.
And this is the problem. We have protections such as "Pleading the 5th" so as not to incriminate one's self. The 4th Amendment tells us police have no right to search and seizure, meaning if you get pulled over for passing a car without using a blinker, it is in your rights NOT to put out your cigarette or get out of the car when he tells you to. We have the right NOT to obey police officers without warrant. So the "if you obey you are not likely to get hurt" scenario might be true, it is outside the rights of the officers to demand it. And they have no right to use force without a warrant.
 

sword

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
3,488
Reaction score
32
Points
48
Smellin Coffee said:
subllibrm said:
Smellin Coffee said:
Another 2nd Amendment question.
Should felons who have not been convicted of violent crimes, be allowed to carry a weapon despite their arrest record? Or should any felony be reason enough to take away one's right to carry a gun? Constitutionally speaking, that is...
Which means, if a person from the hood was convicted of say, distribution of marijuana, why should he lose his rights to carry a gun? Suppose that person living in the hood wanted a piece to protect himself or his family, being that he is living in the most dangerous part of the city. Wouldn't that mean he would try to obtain a weapon illegally for protection? And what if he gets caught? He would be doing the SAME THING as the white, suburbanite from the gated community who wants to keep prowlers off his property. If the police approach each of them, guess who gets thrown in the slammer when both are doing the same thing? (One simply has a license to carry and the other is prohibited from getting the same license.) Both want to defend themselves and family yet the one who lives in the unsafe neighborhood is the one who gets locked up.
Simple drug use / possession is a misdemeanor and does not carry lasting results, pay fine and your done. Most communities likely will not even prosecute simple possession.

If you have over 15 grams (1/2 ounce) then that's possession with intent. That number may be a little low & I think it is but the law considers you a drug dealer. Do you want a convicted drug dealer carrying a weapon? Should felons be allowed to vote? Serve on a Jury? Get employment as a security officer, Judge, police officer or day care worker. Should they be able to adopt? These seem like common sense results of a felony.
 

sword

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
3,488
Reaction score
32
Points
48
The U.S. Supreme Court has long said the 4th amendment does is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law. This is where Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion come in.

I do think the very modern reinterpretations of the 4th amendment have gone way too far. The 8 to 1 SCOTUS decision in Heien v. State of North Carolina goes way beyond what the founders intended. 

 

Smellin Coffee

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 29, 2013
Messages
7,814
Reaction score
1
Points
36
sword said:
If you have over 15 grams (1/2 ounce) then that's possession with intent. That number may be a little low & I think it is but the law considers you a drug dealer. Do you want a convicted drug dealer carrying a weapon? Should felons be allowed to vote? Serve on a Jury? Get employment as a security officer, Judge, police officer or day care worker. Should they be able to adopt? These seem like common sense results of a felony.
That is the wrong question.

Where does the Constitution prohibit these things for a non-violent offense, specifically when "criminal evidence" is gathered without the use of a warrant?
 

Smellin Coffee

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 29, 2013
Messages
7,814
Reaction score
1
Points
36
sword said:
The U.S. Supreme Court has long said the 4th amendment does is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law. This is where Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion come in.

I do think the very modern reinterpretations of the 4th amendment have gone way too far. The 8 to 1 SCOTUS decision in Heien v. State of North Carolina goes way beyond what the founders intended.
4th Amendment:

"[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Constitutionally, there is not enough "cause and suspicion" in a cop seeing smoke from a doobie rising from a parked car window.
 
Top