From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Summary: The RKBA, and how you los it
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 04:14:25 GMT

In article <DLB.92Nov5163711@fanny.wash.inmet.com>, dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes:
> In article <1992Nov5.184232.20993@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
> 
>    This is circular logic - "illegal actions ... are not .. protected"
>    - but what we are talking about are things that are illegal or
>    legal depending on interpretation.  Can certain things be made
>    illegal or not?  Sure shooting someone with a gun is illegal, what
>    about carrying in a threatening manner?  That's the point I was
>    trying to make - where can the government make rules and where
>    can't it.
> 
> "Actions which are already legal when they don't involve guns".  The
> things that you give below as examples are crimes if they are
> performed with anything that may be construed as a threat.  They have
> stood up to any kind of challenge time and time again.  They are a
> part of existing law, and have been for may years.

Guns are a lot different from knives.  I can sit a block away with
a knife and be considered a mild threat - but a gun makes me a 
major threat.  I've had this argument before  "oh then let's ban
steak knives" - tell that to the people in Killeen.  If that guy
had a steak knife 90% of his victims might be alive.  Guns are
a very different matter.

> 
> I don't know what you are driving at, but I repeat --- silly.
> 
>    You mean the inviolable RKBA can be abridged for minors?  What
>    about 18 year olds?  What about 12 year olds on the street?
> 
> Sigh.  The same rules that apply for other constitutional rights.  In
> general, I believe this ends at the age of majority for the state ---
> usually eighteen.

But as many people are fond of telling me - the RKBA is mentioned in
the Constitution.  What if the majority age was pushed up?  Would you
have the same argument? 
> 
> Note that many actions "on the street" are construed as a violation
> against the rights of the parents (such as search and seizure).
> Again, this is existing law with respect to other constitutional
> rights, and I see no reason why this law does not apply to RKBA.
> 
>    I thought the RKBA was an absolute right - how do you lose an
>    absolute right just by commiting a crime?
> 
> You need to lurk some more; this was just the subject of a LONG
> discussion here.  In general, the state has taken the position that a
> felon abrogates his constitutional rights (particularly in prison and
> on parole, but also after release.  You may argue about this in
> general (many have), but I see no reason not to apply the same rule
> across the board, i.e. it is not unique to the RKBA.
> 
I'm only this newsgroup because the discussion swerved over here
from another one.  When it peters out I'm sure I won't be back.
From what I've heard - the RKBA is considered above all that. No
licenses wanted, no waiting period, no nothing, so why some rules
but not others?

>    More gray areas - what is a "threatening manner".  What about a guy
>    in a klan robe with a rifle?  Is that a legitimate RKBA or a
>    threatening manner?  I'm Jewish and I'd feel threatened - but
>    another White Supremicist wouldn't.
> 
> Again, this is existing law in other areas.  Yes, it is grey, but the
> courts have been dealing with this since our inception.  The actual
> test varies from state to state, but is usually taken to be a
> "reasonable and prudent" test: i.e., what would a reasonable and
> prudent man conclude in this area.
> 

I've never run into someone so "reasonable" and "prudent" I'd want
his opinion to endanger my life.  Certainly not the guy who
posted a message saying that my pointing a gun into a schoolyard
was at worst "disturbing the peace"

>    What about just sitting on the bus, holding the gun and laughing
>    uncontrollably?  Who is the "reasonable" person who gets to forbid
>    this.  I've seen plenty of people on the net who might think that
>    this is not as threatening as I do.  Do they get to make that
>    decision?
> 
> The decision is made by a court, based upon a "reasonable and prudent"
> test (that may go to a jury). 
>`
But can they arrest me or not?  If yes - then I am breaking the law,
if not then why should I go to the jury.

> The point is that NONE of these points are unique to guns, but are
> applied across the board to present situations.  If I raise my fist
> and swing at you, a reasonable and prudent person will think they are
> being attacked, and you have the right to self-defense.  Existing law,
> and it should apply to guns as well.

Which is why I made up situations in which no one was being *directly*
threatened.

> 
> No one advocates abandoning normal legal principles or common sense
> when it comes to the RKBA.  We are not in the dark here; these are
> established legal principles that apply in a lot of areas.
> 
I think you are wrong - I've seen many arguments that place the
RKBA above all laws.  Do you think they are right?

marc colten

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns