Lawyers, doctors, or guns

   / Lawyers, doctors, or guns #81  
<font color=blue>I was required to submit to a full set of finger prints like some common criminal</font color=blue>

Phred, criminals aren't the only ones who get fingerprinted./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif I was fingerprinted when I was hired by the U.S. Post Office in '59, again when I was hired by the Police Department in '64, and again when I was accepted at the FBI National Academy in '86./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif It doesn't hurt./w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

Bird
 
   / Lawyers, doctors, or guns #82  
Re: Gun \"rights\"

I am not a all an advocate of anarchy. If you read the 10th Amendment in conjunction with the second, it becomes perfectly clear.

The 10th:

"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."

The keywords here are "NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES". If you then read the 2nd:

"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."

This clearly shows that, since the 2nd PROHIBITS infringement of the RKBA, the 10th plainly PROHIBITS any law that does so. It doesn't take a Constitutional scholar to see this. (Also in the Constitution, the Militia is clearly defined as ALL ABLE-BODIED MALES AGE 16 TO 45.)

Also, a shotgun is absolutely the WORST home defense firearm. The shot pattern dooesn't even BEGIN to disperse for at least 20 yards, and is MUCH more likely (unless VERY small shot is used) to inflict unintended injuries on innocents.

Far better to use that pistol, but load it with Glaser Safety Slugs, which fragment immediately upon entry into a hard surface. For more info: http://www.safetyslug.com/

Hope this helps...
 
   / Lawyers, doctors, or guns #83  
<font color=blue>I suspect the density of tractors is a little greater in alabama than in san francisco, unless harv has been hard at work</font color=blue>

I dunno about the tractors, but I'm about as dense as they come. /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

HarvSig.gif
 
   / Lawyers, doctors, or guns #84  
Since the membership of this forum have repeatedly demonstrated their overwhelming preference for all things Japanese--from tractors, digital cameras, stereos and 4wd utility vehicles--I thought you might be interested in the following excerpts from an article describing gun control in Japan.

<font color=blue>Japanese Gun Control

DAVID B KOPEL[*]

I. Introduction

In October 1992, in Louisiana, a Japanese exchange student named Yoshihiro Hattori went into the wrong house on the way to a Halloween party. The homeowner's wife screamed for help and the homeowner drew his .44 pistol and yelled for the student to 'freeze!' Not understanding the American idiom that 'freeze!' means 'Don't move or I'll shoot', the student continued advancing towards the homeowner. The homeowner pulled the trigger and shot him dead.[1] While the incident initially attracted only brief attention in the national American press, the shooting horrified Japan; hundreds of thousands of Japanese have signed petitions calling for the United States to implement gun prohibition, and Hattori's parents have announced plans to begin working with the American lobby, Handgun Control Inc.[2]

To many Japanese, and to many Americans, it is simply incomprehensible that the United States has not implemented strict gun controls or prohibitions along the Japanese model. Gun control in Japan is the most stringent in the democratic world. The weapons law begins by stating 'No-one shall possess a fire-arm or fire-arms or a sword or swords', and very few exceptions are allowed.[3] Gun ownership is minuscule, and so is gun crime. As gun crime in other nations increases, many advocates of gun control urge that Japan's gun control policy be imitated.[4]

....

II. Gun Possession and Gun Crime: Almost Nil

The only type of firearm which a Japanese citizen may even contemplate acquiring is a shotgun.[5] Sportsmen are permitted to possess shotguns for hunting and for skeet and trap (p.27)shooting, but only after submitting to a lengthy licensing procedure.[6] Without a license, a person may not even hold a gun in his or her hands.

The licensing procedure is rigorous. A prospective gun owner must first attend classes and pass a written test.[7] Shooting range classes and a shooting test follow; 95 per cent pass.[8] After the safety exam, the applicant takes a simple 'mental test' at a local hospital, to ensure that the applicant is not suffering from a readily detectable mental illness. The applicant then produces for the police a medical certificate attesting that he or she is mentally healthy and not addicted to drugs.[9]

The police investigate the applicant's background and relatives, ensuring that both are crime free. Membership in 'aggressive' political or activist groups disqualifies an applicant.[10] The police have unlimited discretion to deny licenses to any person for whom 'there is reasonable cause to suspect may be dangerous to other persons' lives or properties or to the public peace'.[11]

Gun owners are required to store their weapons in a locker, and give the police a map of the apartment showing the location of the locker. Ammunition must be kept in a separate locked safe. The licenses also allow the holder to buy a few thousand rounds of ammunition, with each transaction being registered.[12]

Civilians may also apply for licenses to possess air rifles--low-power guns that are powered by carbon dioxide rather than by gunpowder.

Civilians can never own handguns. Small calibre rifles were once legal, but in 1971, the Government forbade all transfers of rifles. Current rifle license holders may continue to own them, but their heirs must turn them into the police when the license-holder dies.[13] Total remaining rifle licenses are 27,000.[14] Even shotguns and air rifles, the two legal types of firearm, are becoming rarer and rarer, as few people find it worthwhile to pass through a burdensome gun licensing process. The number of licensed shotguns and air rifles declined from 652,000 in 1981 to 493,373 in 1989.[15]

Although there is no mandatory minimum penalty for unlicensed firearm possession, 81 per cent of sentences for illegal firearm or sword possession are imprisonment for a year or more, perhaps because most gun crimes are perpetrated by professional criminals.[16] The maximum penalty is ten years in prison and a one million yen fine.

Gun crime does exist, but in very low numbers. There were only 30 crimes committed in 1989 with shotguns or air rifles.[17] With no legal civilian handgun possession, Japan experiences in an average year less than 200 violent crimes perpetrated with a handgun, of which almost all are perpetrated by Boryokudan, organised crime groups.[18] Most gun crimes involve only unlicensed possession, and not the commission of another crime. Including the possession cases, there are about 600 handgun crimes a year and 900 long gun crimes.[19] (p.28)In the years after the Second World War, former soldiers were the major source of illegal guns. Today, illegal guns are usually smuggled from overseas (especially from the Philippines and the United States) by organised crime gangs which also import pornography, drugs, and illegal immigrants.[20] A small number of craftsmen specialise in converting toy and model guns into working handguns for criminals.[21] Gangster appetites for guns, and success in procuring them is said by the police to be increasing.[22] Of weapons confiscated from gangsters, guns accounted for only six per cent in 1960, but 39 per cent in 1988.[23] On the other hand, the number of real handguns confiscated by the police has fallen from 1,338 in 1985 to 875 in 1989. The number of converted toy handguns seized has fallen from a high of 569 in 1985 to 128 in 1989.[24]

Because gun crime still exists in tiny numbers, the police make gun licenses increasingly difficult to obtain. The test and all-day lecture are held once a month. The lecture almost always requires that the licensee take a full day off from work--not a highly regarded activity by Japanese employers. An annual gun inspection is scheduled at the convenience of the police, and also requires time off from work. Licenses must be renewed every three years, with another all-day safety lecture and examination at police headquarters.

Tokyo is the safest major city in the world. Only 59,000 licensed gun owners live in Tokyo.[25] Per one million inhabitants, Tokyo has 40 reported muggings a year; New York has 11,000.[26] The handgun murder rate is at least 200 times higher in America than Japan.[27] The official homicide rate in Japan in 1988 was 1.2 homicide cases per 100,000 population, while in America it was 8.4 homocide cases per 100,000.[28]

Robbery is almost as rare as murder. Indeed, armed robbery and murder are both so rare that they usually make the national news, regardless of where they occur.[29] Japan's robbery rate is 1.4 per 100,000 inhabitants. The reported American rate is 220.9.[30] People walk anywhere in Japan at night, and carry large sums of cash.[31]</font color=blue>

As another cross-cultural comparison, Britain once had a right to bear arms in its Bill of Rights. Parliament repealed that right in 1920 after the national bloodbath of WWI. Increasing regulation and licensing laws produced by 1989 an essentially gunless society. It is estimated that less than 4% of British households own licensed guns. Gun crime is very low in Britain, and British Bobbies are famous for not carrying guns.
 
   / Lawyers, doctors, or guns
  • Thread Starter
#85  
Yeah baby! Given what the Japanese did as a group the last time they had guns, I don't think it is a good idea that they have any either. Ref: 1938-1945
 
   / Lawyers, doctors, or guns #86  
The article in Backwoods Home posted by TB2K_guru is quite good. It prompted me to spend some time surveying contemporary legal academic scholarship on the Second Amendment. Here is a summary of what I find:

1. The 2A has received essentially no interpretation by the Supreme Court.

2. The overwhelming view of legal scholars is that the 2A does grant an individual right to keep and bear arms. The small minority view of scholars is that the right only applies to state militias.

3. The 2A only prevents the federal government from infringing on the the right to keep and bear arms. It does not prevent state governments from doing so. This is little understood by nonlawyers, but the entire Bill of Rights was written only as a prohibition on federal power. ("Congress shall make no law ....") After the Civil War, however, the Supreme Court began a process called selective 14th Amendment "incorporation" of the Bill of Rights. This means the Court has held the the "due process clause" of the 14th amendment to mean that some of the Bill of Rights also apply to the states. By this "incorporation" doctrine the Supreme Court has held that the 1st and 4th amendments, for example, are binding on the states as well as on the federal Congress. The Supreme Court has not yet decided, because the question has never come up, whether the 2A is or is not incorporated as against state governments. Thus states are not prohibited by the 2d or 14th amendments from regulating or banning guns.

4. The incorporation question is mostly moot, however, because 43 states have adopted state constitutions that include a right to bear arms.

5. There is no decided constitutional law that the 9th or 10th Amendments provide an independent basis for a right to bear arms. There is essentially no interpretation of these amendments in any context. Some authors have conjectured that the natural rights interpretation of the Ninth Amendment theoretically could provide such a basis, but no court has ever so decided.

6. Natural rights is more a doctrine of philosophy and theology than of contemporary law. However, even assuming natural rights do exist independently of express legal rights, no one can agree what these natural rights are. Gun ownership? Horse ownership? Abortion? Marriage? Child bearing?

7. Even individual constitutional rights, like the majority view of the 2A, are not completely absolute. Thus there can be restrictions in rare cases--eg, children.

8. The constitutional right is to keep and bear "arms". Here is where much of the confusion and debate swirls. What does "arms" mean in the constitutional sense. Does it mean arms in the sense that the Founders meant it in 1790--ie, only pistols and flintlock rifles. Some strict constructionists argue that. Does it mean all the "arms" of contemporary times, including laser-guided missles, nuclear bombs, etc. Some people argue that. The Supreme Court has never given any definitive guidance on what "arms" means.

9. Some authors focus on the fact that the constitutional rights are only to "keep" and "bear" arms. Some argue that there is no constitutional right to "fire" the arms; therefore, the federal government could regulate who, where and when arms can be fired. Other writers avoid a constitutional right to nuclear arms by focusing on the word "bear" (ie, carry). They say that the constitution only gives a right to arms that you literally can carry around ("bear") in your arms. These authors argue that there is thus a constitutional right to machine guns and Stinger missile launchers, but not to cannon or nuclear bombs. Again, the federal courts have given no interpretive guidance on what "keep" and "bear" mean.

What this all means is that, even if you want to literally adhere to the Constitution, there is still room for heated and irreconcilable debate about what it means to have the right to "keep" and "bear" things called "arms".

Once those questions are answered someday by Supreme Court interpretations, I think there would be very little constitutional room to regulate the arms. I also believe the Supreme Court would incorporate the 2A through the 14th Amendment against state regulation if the question were ever litigated. There is no policy reason in my view to treat the 2A right different from the right to speech or the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. All these rights are aimed at protecting individual liberties against government oppression. Both liberals and conservatives should, philosophically, agree on this.
 
   / Lawyers, doctors, or guns #87  
Patrick, for consistency sake let's include ref: 1492-1890, Americas. European tourists vs. all native **** sapiens.
 
   / Lawyers, doctors, or guns #88  
<font color=blue>British Bobbies are famous for not carrying guns</font color=blue>

But becoming less so all the time from what I hear. More and more of them carrying guns.

Bird
 
   / Lawyers, doctors, or guns
  • Thread Starter
#89  
To which native **** sapiens do you refer?

The ones that walked across the Bering Land Bridge, the ones who sailed from Scandinavia, from Ireland? The ones that exterminated many of the native animal species? What some earlier arrivals did to Mamoths went beyond what Euro-tourists did to Bison. Fill me in, to whom do you refer, Lucy perhaps? Isn't everyone living out of Africa a migrant? (or a space alien)

Oh, that reminds me... I just recently met guite a fellow, a gentleman and smart too. John Barrett, Chairman of the Citizen Pottawatomie Nation (native aboriginal people, or what?) Every Pott I have met has blue eyes, I'm told some have green. They have straight narrow noses and no oriental look to their eyes. Every Pott I've met is as light as the average WASP. Back about 1500 there was a split over religion and there became three tribes ( they were originally lcated in Nova Scotia, St. Laurence, and Great Lakes region. Language is similar to the Ojibway. I think in the large all three groups, are collectively the Anishinabe. The Pottawatomie are called Citizen Pottawatomie because they were the first tribe to, en mass, renounce tribal citizenship and take on US citizenship. They also officially renounced paganism and adopted Christianity as their "State Religion" but retain some non-conflicting ritual (I've witnessed a blessing ceremony and it was beautiful). Later when rewriting their constitution they deleted Tribe and Chief in favor of Nation and Chairman (freely elected). John has about 25,000 constituents who are 1/4 or more Pott blood. Pressing business cut our chat short so we only talked for an hour. He was just warming to some of my ethnicity/geneology/genetic testing questions. Seems they have done some genetics work regarding suspected Norse/Viking origins. I haven't got the "rest of the story" yet.

So, do I regard him as an aboriginal descendent due the redress of other oppressed early arrivals or is he Euro-trash getting a special deal for his relatives by slick manipulation of BIA ignorance?

Personally I would like to be a friend of his and have more friends like him but that may be because I'm part Indian but not his kind of indian.

They don't fit the stereotype many have of "indians". When John was 25 there was a bit over 500 bucks (no pun intended) in the account. Now they have assetts over 25 mil, own a national bank, and happen to be my ISP CPN-net.com (Citizen Pottawatomie Nation) I haven't seen any Pott bingo parlours or cigarrette stands. They are into business and provide for their own as in free protheses, false teeth, and eye glasses for any member asking. John is big into registered Black Angus, AI, embryo implantation, etc.

Soon they will be having teleconferenced National meetings. They have many Potts and regional National offices in enclaves in California, Arizona, and a few other locations.

He did tell me a funny! What do you get when you cross a Chickasaw with a Pottawatomie and their offspring marries a Piute and has a child?

A chicken pot pie.

Patrick (I gotta go, appologies to the Duck's Breath Theater)
 
   / Lawyers, doctors, or guns #90  
Re: Gun \"rights\"

OK, Todd ... my friend, we'll change the subject.
Legalize prostitution? Yes. It'll provide tax dollars, hopefully provide a cleaner "service" (as it is in Europe) and it'll pi$$ off a whole buncha old ladies and bookburners!
Legalize drugs? No. It'll create a worse problem than we have now. Start cleaning up the problem by eliminating the jail time ... and building gallows. It'll clean up the shallow end of the gene pool and get rid of a whole mess of hokey "artistes" ... overpaid jocks ... and most politicians.
IMHO, of course ....

too bad that common sense ain't
 

Tractor & Equipment Auctions

2015 CHEVROLET SILVERADO CREW CAB TRUCK (A51406)
2015 CHEVROLET...
1269 (A50490)
1269 (A50490)
2010 Chevrolet Tahoe SUV (A50324)
2010 Chevrolet...
Ferris 52in Zero Turn Mower (A51694)
Ferris 52in Zero...
2014 Dodge 5500 4X4 Bucket Truck (A52748)
2014 Dodge 5500...
2012 INTERNATIONAL DURASTAR 4400 4X2 SERVICE TRUCK (A51406)
2012 INTERNATIONAL...
 
Top