From: josh@Happy-Man.com (Joshua_Putnam)
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Reply-To: Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:28:16 GMT

In <1992Nov6.035143.22068@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:

>In article <1992Nov5.182632.22314@Happy-Man.com>, josh@Happy-Man.com (Joshua_Putnam) writes:
>> In <1992Nov5.133648.1557@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
>> 
>> >In article <51419@seismo.CSS.GOV>, tcarter@seismo.CSS.GOV (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?

Not in any of the copies of the Constitution I have seen --
perhaps yours needs proofreading?  The RKBA applies to "the
people," as do the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.
Nothing in the Constitution overrides the legal definition
of a person, so far as I can see.  Of course, if you think
all human beings always qualify as legal "people," I suppose
you must support overturning Roe v. Wade, which turned on
the definition of a "person" in the context of
Constitutional guarantees.

>> 
>> >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.

Nonsense.  They, as convicts, have lost many of their civil
rights.  This is part of the punishment for attacking
society.  

>> 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.  
>> 
>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".

Perhaps in your world, disturbing the peace is legal?  It
isn't in most.

>> >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.

Exactly.  Your actions are criminal.  You have the right to
own and carry the gun, not to threaten others with it.
Can't you see the difference?

>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?

Laws restricting the right of the people, as the term is
used in the context of civil rights guarantees, to keep and
bear arms, are just as bad as laws restricting the rights of
the people to vote, assemble peaceably for redress, speak,
be secure in their lives & property, etc.

None of the situations you described involve laws
infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
so your arguments seem out of place.  Assault is illegal,
whether committed with a gun or an ax.  Disturbing the
peace is illegal, whether done with a gun or a baseball bat.
Civil rights, including the right to vote, have been denied
to convicts and minors throughout history, as they do not
have the same legal standing as noncriminal adults.
(Remember, for example, that the Constitution explicitly
permits slavery *as a punishment for criminals*, just not on
any other, arbitrary criteria.)
-- 
 Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com    Happy Man Corp.  206/463-9399 x102
 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399  fax x108
 We publish SOLID VALUE for the intelligent investor.  NextMail OK
Info free; sample $20: Send POSTAL addr: Solid-Value@happy-man.com