From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: 2nd Ammendment
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
	<DLB.92Nov5112146@fanny.wash.inmet.com>
	<1992Nov5.184232.20993@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:37:11 GMT

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.

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.

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.

   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.

   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). 

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.

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.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com