Horror in Utah! OCer handcuffed, detained, and cited.

[Lobo]

.

 

[Kutnupe14]

^^^^ Rep'd

 

[Indy317]

Yeah, it may be a bit over the top, but he's trying to make a point about open carry....just like a few members here have done on previous OC walks in downtown Indianapolis. They didn't make us look bad, ....

If one doesn't think carrying an AR, AK, HK-MP5, or whatever else doesn't make us look bad, they are mistaken. It does paint some as paranoids, and that won't be good for us. We are talking about a populace that voted for a person to be president that clearly has a socialist/communist/whatever you want to call it agenda. This has actually happened election after election.

When it comes to guns, just given my friends and family, many seem to fall into the same camp when it comes to OCing: "Why?" These people are voters, and if you scare the sheep, don't be surprised if the law changes to CC only. It is already happening in Wisconsin. OC is legal, CC is illegal. Now they want to make the state CC only, with licenses, with testing/training requirements. Why? Because of all these incidents with the cops and OCers, which started with some third party calling 911. The Supreme court already ruled in Heller that some restrictions are OK. So I guess the real question is, when states and municipalities start banning or restricting OCing of arms, in whatever fashion, do you think the Supreme Court of the US will support or over-turn that law/ordinance?

And why does someone's irrational fear and ignorance get to set a standard for me and mine?

Why is someone's fear of me smashing into them doing 150MPH on the interstate a valid reason to restrict my speed? Why is their fear of me smashing into them at an intersection reason enough to put up stop lights/signs and require me to stop? There is a safety aspect, folks still view guns as dangerous, and for whatever reason, they view OCing as dangerous. While the majority, for now at least, seems to be OK with these dangerous items in their own homes for protection, for whatever reason, these perceptions change when talking about OCing, "assault weapons", magazine capacity, CCing, etc..

This is the country we live in, and elections have consequences. If the carrying of guns was so important to the people, the next mayor of Indy would be making the carrying of guns in city parks a top priority. It isn't, so that tells me just how important this issue is to the masses.

IMO what hurts the perception of gun owners is sayin a gun owner that isn't breaking the law hurts the perception of gun owners.

I disagree. As an avid supporter of free speech, someone calling people names in the public isn't helping my cause. Why? Because people vote. You seem to think like me: While some things might cause discomfort in others, that doesn't mean we should start passing laws. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happens in our society. I do think that many handgun OCers don't have as many issues because many folks assume the person is a police officer. We have had a handful of OCers post just such stories on this forum.

Are you suggesting that any time somebody OC's they should be stopped by every officer they see and detained? Should cops also pull over all motorists just to see that they were licensed? Probably cause must be shown. Courts have already determined that OC is NOT probable cause. Ergo, we don't have to PROVE our lawfulness.

This kind of information can be harmful to some. SOME courts have ruled that OCing isn't PC, in states where OCing isn't illegal (ie: The New Mexico case). Others courts have ruled differently. Name me one Indiana court case where an officer testified he saw a handgun on a person, and the courts ruled the officer didn't have reasonable suspicion or PC to stop the person for an investigation. I'm of the belief that if an officer gets a reasonable person as a witness, or witnesses a person OCing/CCing but gun is showing, that the courts will rule the officer, based upon Indiana law, had at a minimum a reasonable suspicion to stop the person.

Somewhere, somehow firearms were relegated to the trash heap of public opinion.

No, they weren't. OCing maybe, but not firearms in general. I find it odd that folks would say this. We have tons of states allowing folks to carry weapons. A handful of states are moving towards not even having a license system. Some folks seem to want a wild wild west/Mogadishu type existence, where everyone is walking around with a handgun and battle rifle. I mean, what is the purpose of OCing an AR, AK, MP-5, etc. if not for wanting to mirror current day Mogadishu? Obviously if one wants to carry such a weapon, doesn't that mean they have the thinking that they might actually have a good chance of needing to use it?

I don't think that a Mogadishu style of existence ever really happened in the US. The frontier west was likely similar for a short time period, and I imagine a lot of criminals used the rural area as a means to escape from the law and order that had been established back east. However, as things changed in the nation, I believe the need for having a gun "at the ready 24/7" died with most people. As those attitudes changed, so did various gun laws over the years.

I say it's time to change that. Why should a man be considered a threat for exercising his God-given right? Why? Accepting that is unacceptable to me.

If the Bill of Rights was "God-given", then God must not care all that much, otherwise he would have flooded Chicago, DC, etc.. I believe humans have basic rights, and the ability to defend themselves and their loved ones is such a right. As a county, we established the Constitution, and while folks love to wave their Bill of Rights in front of everyone's face, they seem to cut off the piece about the Judiciary branch of government. You see, if the Bill of Rights was written today, each right would have an * after it. That * would refer the reader back to the section of the Judiciary where it states "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."


It would do so because as of today, we have taken the above to mean that the US Supreme Court can make a ruling as to what exactly each individual amendment means. Proclaiming "God-given rights" sounds nice, but that means that the person making the proclamation can be justified in anything they claim as their right, because 'it comes from God.'

 

[OWGEM]

^^^ Rep inbound.

 

[Bill of Rights]

At this point (reading the first 40 posts, I have these thoughts:

People who make MWAG calls need to start being prosecuted.

I've always been told when I get pulled over for speed and I did not know the speed limit that, IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE.

I would be getting the 911 calls pulled and filing civil suit against the people who called. (if anyone called)

This has the potential to do some good. Perhaps not prosecuted, but at least the caller should be informed that merely carrying a firearm is not unlawful. (That is, if I had my druthers, it would be treated like a call of a "man carrying a Leatherman" or a "woman in a bikini"... neither act is against the law. Now... if the man with the Leatherman is using it in the middle of Circle Center to assemble a bomb or is using it to disassemble some property not his own, that would be actionable, as would the woman wearing the bikini walking down the street, (actively) flashing various body parts at drivers and potentially causing collisions.

and there should be an easy way to sue them

we also need to make it so a cop who makes a stop or arrest on a mwag is guilty of a crime and owes the arrested guy a lot of money...

is it a right or not???

If the arrest is solely because he is peaceably minding his own business while carrying a firearm in a lawful manner, I'd agree.

I love the police officer basically saying, I know what he's doing is legal, I know we are violating his rights but we are going to keep doing it! Because someone called, that is disorderly conduct? I'm getting on the phone and calling in "man with a keyboard!" some of you are in so much trouble! You know who you are!

It depends on the Utah statute in re: DC. I've read only the snippet of it that Kutnupe posted and I quoted later in this post. I'd need to read the whole thing and understand it in the context the courts have set precedent about it, but it is possible that if he put people in fear, the statute could make that a criminal act. That's on the people to pressure their legislators to change. Regardless, if he was on private property and unwelcome, police should have a way to remove him on the owner's (or owner's representative's) request, and yes, I know that would be trespass, not DC.

i dont think the mall is a place to take a weapon like this.

You are entitled to that thought. It's not against the law, though, not in IN, nor in UT. By all means, though, if it's your belief that the mall is not a place to take a rifle, do not do so. Just don't make an attempt to stop someone else who is doing so peaceably.

I personally think WE need to start open carrying more often.
Until it becomes an everyday occurance and people no longer look at it as something unusual, and
take in stride.
That is one of the ways to make it more acceptable to open carry.

Plus, We need to start teaching people not rely so much on others, when confronted by something that makes them nervous.
There was a time when people took care of themselves and not call the Law at a drop of a hat.

This is good in principle, but it falls down when we get down to the numbers. Indiana issues more LTCHs than any other state save New York, however, we still only have about 15% of the law-abiding, adult population holding them, or about one in six adults. Of that number (and admittedly, from here on, the numbers I'm using are pure speculation, not fact) let's say that half actually do carry. Of those, maybe half carry regularly, and of those, let's say half OC at some point or other.

That amounts to about 1% of the population of our fair state's population. One person in 100 OCing is not going to make this an everyday occurrence. Even if we had an OC walk/demonstration/whatever every weekend in every city over 50,000 people in the state, it wouldn't change that perception, those people would simply be colloquially labeled "those gun nuts" or maybe "those open-carry nutjobs". I don't agree, but this is a political reality. We need to change that thought pattern first, THEN start showing people it's OK.
I know that when I carry (a large percentage of the time, BTW), I go out of my way to be civil, polite, courteous, etc. Granted, I do that anyway, but I'm more aware of it when I carry, on the off chance that someone might see my pistol. I want them to associate, "That man had a gun!" with "...and he was probably the nicest guy I met all day!"

That's one of the things I do to change the "GUN!" mentality to one of "Guy. Oh, and BTW, he happened to have a gun on him."

It's open for debate....

Utah's Code:

76-9-102. Disorderly conduct.
(1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if:
(a) he refuses to comply with the lawful order of the police to move from a public place, or knowingly creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition, by any act which serves no legitimate purpose; or
(b) intending to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
(i) engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous, or threatening behavior;

Now here's the question, did this guy know that by carrying a rifle he would create a physically offensive condition? Did his act serve a legitimate purpose? Would the public be alarmed by his behavior and consider it threatening? I would say yes on all counts.

Did this person have the means to adequate protect himself in another manner.... yes, he's a CCW holder.

Now someone will site the 2nd Amendment, but does that honestly apply in this situation? The 2nd Amendment can hardly be seen as "free for all" anybody to have a weapon anytime they want. There must be certain prohibitions in place. This guy is reckless, pure and simple. I agree that one should not view simple open carrying or ownership as offensive. However, it's how you carry that determines what is offensive of not. having a rifle slung across your chest in a mall is certainly offensive.

Kutnupe, you made clear the fact that you only quoted what portions of the UT code you considered relevant and while I thank you for actually tracking down the law and posting it, I have to wonder if there is more that might apply. I may go check after writing this novel I've embarked upon in this post. The point I see is that if as you said his act did serve a legitimate purpose, DC does not seem to apply. I would hope he has a good, pro-2A lawyer who can argue that point and win, hopefully setting precedent to prevent future abuses of that law in this manner.
Further, having a rifle slung across your chest in a mall is offensive? Would you say the same if the person doing so was in a helmet and gas mask, with "POLICE" emblazoned across his body armor? I would not be offended by it from either that person or from the non-LEO citizen, though yes, I'd tick up from "Yellow" to "Orange" and get my family out if I considered the person a threat. That last might happen regardless of if the person was a LEO or not.

Isn't disorderly conduct generally a "catch all" that can be widely interpreted?

I'm not trying to hijack this thread, but it seems an officer has a lot of discretion to use disorderly conduct. Perhaps too much?

It can be. Depends a lot on how the statute is written. [strike]There is no such statute in Indiana, fortunately.[/strike] As to whether it's too much discretion, I think that's a question applicable to the individual officer, not to LEOs generally, unless you want to say also that the gun laws in IN also give too much discretion to the individual owner. (Yes, I know you're not going there.) Discretion is an individual thing. I don't think we can properly regulate it with a general thing like statute. We have to choose wisely to which people we grant authority to be exercised as tempered by their discretion, IMHO.

Are you suggesting that any time somebody OC's they should be stopped by every officer they see and detained? Should cops also pull over all motorists just to see that they were licensed? Probably cause must be shown. Courts have already determined that OC is NOT probable cause. Ergo, we don't have to PROVE our lawfulness.

Lone guy carrying a gun around a mall might seem odd, but if he were to be questioned and found to be not breaking the law, it is despicable that they throw out a vague bs charge just to punish (control) him.

Perhaps, and I stress that word, it would not be unreasonable to expect an officer whose job is to serve and protect the public at large to at least notice someone carrying and show an interest in them. I'd expect the same interest to be shown to someone whose car was stalled or to someone who was having a public argument (regardless if another person was involved or if that person was arguing with himself in a loud manner) That is to say, I'd expect the officer to approach and determine the person's needs and their state of mind and then determine if further action was needed and then if it was appropriate for the officer to provide it, whether as transport for evaluation of the guy arguing with himself, mediation for the people arguing together, use of his warning lights and a call for a wrecker for the stranded motorist, or a polite "Good day" vs. a chase for the guy carrying the gun depending on his actions when the officer approached.


What I find interesting is that no one addressed that for it to be an "assault rifle", it would have to be select-fire, by definition. (I thought I'd quoted the person who said that that term was now null and void, but apparently, I did not. The term that is null and void except to the MSM is "assault weapon", not assault rifle. Regardless, that also is inapplicable unless the gun was select-fire. I did not notice if it was.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Kutnupe14]

Kutnupe, you made clear the fact that you only quoted what portions of the UT code you considered relevant and while I thank you for actually tracking down the law and posting it, I have to wonder if there is more that might apply. I may go check after writing this novel I've embarked upon in this post. The point I see is that if as you said his act did serve a legitimate purpose, DC does not seem to apply. I would hope he has a good, pro-2A lawyer who can argue that point and win, hopefully setting precedent to prevent future abuses of that law in this manner.
Further, having a rifle slung across your chest in a mall is offensive? Would you say the same if the person doing so was in a helmet and gas mask, with "POLICE" emblazoned across his body armor? I would not be offended by it from either that person or from the non-LEO citizen, though yes, I'd tick up from "Yellow" to "Orange" and get my family out if I considered the person a threat. That last might happen regardless of if the person was a LEO or not.

Certainly. If an officer was to conduct a traffic stop and got out if his car in dressed in the way you described, I wouldn't consider that offensive, I'd consider that intimidation. Same as if the officer was walking a foot patrol throughout a neighborhood doing. It works both ways. I surely understand that. The things is though, the standard become a bit more serious if it's a police officer... even though every right a citizen has, the officer should have too, right?

 

[jsharmon7]

It can be. Depends a lot on how the statute is written. There is no such statute in Indiana, fortunately.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you, but there is a disorderly conduct statute in Indiana.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Well, one of my premises was, and I'll quote.... "The 2nd Amendment can hardly be seen as "free for all" for anybody to have a weapon anytime they want. There must be certain prohibitions in place."

agree or disagree?

Disagree. The prohibitions you're referring to are known by another name: Infringements. Those are specifically disallowed, and together with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, those prohibitions are denied at ALL levels of government. The 9A, as you know, says in essence, all rights are not enumerated here. They still exist despite not being named. The 10A clarifies that powers not granted the fedgov in the Constitution are denied to the fedgov and unless otherwise denied, are reserved to the states or to the people (that is, individuals, not the "body politic") The Constitution as a whole is a restrictive document upon the government, not the people, and as such, unlike the 1A which specifies "Congress shall make no law...", the 2A specifically denies the power of infringement of those two rights, the right to keep and the right to bear arms, to all levels of government... and it did so long before the idea of "incorporating" elements of the Bill of Rights against the several states. The long and short of this is that the individual shall not be prohibited those arms he can bear upon him... and yes, this would exclude nuclear weapons but would not exclude bombs, even "dirty bombs", and it sure as hell would not exclude automatic rifles (etc) or other firearms based on arbitrary criteria such as barrel length or diameter nor on nebulous criteria such as the determination that it has a "sporting purpose".

Can you yell fire in a crowed theater? I mean 1st Amendment, right? It's a legal action, right? Or does one use the application of common sense and how that action will be viewed by the public?

Absolutely you can yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but you're responsible for the consequences of your actions. You're not prevented as a condition of entry into the theater to have some preventative measure, some "prohibition" placed on your use of your mouth or vocal cords, such as having a paralytic spray applied to the latter to prevent your use of them (analogous to magazine capacity and other laws that restrict usage... which those who disobey the law will flout anyway)

THIS is the entire text of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere within the text does it make exclusions, referencing intent. Purely on the surface, a person can say what they want, when they want, putting them in harms way or not. By you saying that a person cannot "yell fire in a theater," you are admitting that prohibitions outside of text are viable....

In the 1A it does not. In the 5A it does. "...nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law..." Intent is an element of (most) crimes of violence, as you know.

THIS is the entire text of the Second Amendment:

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

I will remind you of my statement:

The 2nd Amendment can hardly be seen as "free for all" for anybody to have a weapon anytime they want. There must be certain prohibitions in place.

If you disagreeeverything I said, that means you disagree with the above. That said, people incarcerated should have access to firearms, no? I mean that is clearly in violation of the 2nd correct? I don't believe that any prohibitions are stated. Am I getting you stance right, or do you agree that denying criminals acess to firearms while incarcerated is a good thing?

I'm just showing you guys that if you want to talk about rights, don't waiver in their applications.

See above. The 5A does provide for those incarcerated to be denied their ability to lawfully exercise their rights.

You're playing semantics and playing it poorly. The duly convicted and incarcerated have FORFEITED their rights. That's not a prohibition.

You're gonna have to do better than that.

Close. They've forfeited their ability to lawfully exercise their rights while incarcerated. It seems like a semantical difference, but it is not. One cannot forfeit a right given by his Creator, though he can choose not to exercise it. Example: I have the right to keep and bear arms. I am presently exercising the right to keep them. I am choosing not to exercise my right to bear arms at the moment, as I am not presently bearing any type of weapon upon my person other than those with which I was born (unless you count a pair of sweatpants and a hoodie as weapons. )

Can you can point me to the section of the Constitution that illustrates these protections are forfeited?
So you're saying that "The duly convicted and incarcerated" have no right to free speech, no right to be protected from Cruel and unusual punishment, ect? Well heck, bring out the goon swith the rubber hoses.
Or do govt's get to pick and choose which rights they can deny the "The duly convicted and incarcerated?"

You'd be surprised how well I play the semantics game.

As above, that section is a portion of the 5A, but the rights are not forfeit, just the ability to lawfully exercise those rights. The duly incarcerated cannot be denied their freedom to speak, to believe as they choose, to write, etc., though they could conceivably be denied a pen or paper as either might be useful as a weapon of some sort. They ARE presently denied weapons, however that doesn't seem to stop them from sharpening toothbrushes or the like. Life, liberty, and property may be taken by due process. It seems to me that to continue to deny them the tools to exercise their right of self defense after their term of incarceration is served might violate the 8A, however, in that to do so lengthens the term of their punishment, makes them helpless before attackers (Clockwork Orange, anyone?) and seems to me to be cruel. I would agree with enhancing any sentence of a previously-convicted person who uses a weapon offensively, but not the punishment of the mere possession.

My arguments are concise, well-written, easy to follow, and examples have been provided. The gist of my argument is that the rights protected under the Constitution, are regularly voided by state gov, or modified to exclude certain individuals. Most people have no issue with many of these. Things like excessive bail, the Free Speech exception, denying criminals access to firearms, and the like. I certainly like all of the preceeding. These are popular because it protects the vast majority of people.
In this case, I would say that from a Constitution standpoint, his rights were certainly violated... But, that only after taking the First Amendment at face value. My point, is if you're going to read the Constitution as a literal word for word document, then you better read all of it that way. You don't have the luxury to decide what you do and don't agree with, and expect to have a legitimate argument.
So that said, if one's "Right to Bear Arms," is universal without prohibitions (which I do not agree with as even being close to the founders intent), then you must.... no if, ands, or buts, agree that it applies to any and everybody... regardless of who are where they are. That is, if your taking the Constitution at face value.

That government, including SCOTUS, chooses to limit things that were not intended to be limited does not make it right. Much... I'd even go so far as to say most...of what government does is beyond its mandate, purview, and scope and if we, the People, had been paying attention and not been lazy, it would never have been allowed. Our predecessors, however, dropped the ball. They dropped it a lot, seeking security where they should have sought liberty. I think it's Melensdad who has in his signature the Latin quote of "better a dangerous liberty than a safe servitude" or some such.

Admittedly, I'm no Constitutional scholar, but I do know how to read and interpret, and if I must say so myself, I think I do it rather well. There are some portions of the Constitution of which I'm not fond, both as originally written and as amended, but I've taken a personal oath to support and defend it and that means that even if I don't agree with portions of it, I support it (as a whole) until those portions can be (or have been) overturned.

I've not been programmed by society. It's just the way society is.

Maybe you should listen to "The Bulletproof Mind" by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman sometime. While I don't agree with everything he says in his lecture, he is right about interpersonal violence being a universal human phobia. The gun is a symbol of violence, not just a benign tool as some allude to. It has one purpose, and that is to kill. Certainly, the killing can be justified, and most certainly is in cases of lawful self-defense. But the vast majority of people, who live relatively benign and peaceful lives, do not want this symbol of violence shoved into their face during their everyday routine.

Absent a specific and credible threat, people don't see a person with a long gun in a peaceful urban setting as anything but a potential threat. It's just not reasonable behavior to the vast majority of people. Even during the turn of the century, and into the 1940's and 1950's, when every department store carried firearms and you could order a pistol through mail order, people still didn't go to dinner or shopping with a long gun strapped to them. Yes, perhaps in the early years of our nation, when the threat of frontier violence was real, but not in modern society.

Firearms have not been "relegated to the trash heap of history" as you claim. Indeed, more states than ever in our nation's history have "shall issue" handgun permit laws. But even though the carry of long guns is generally legal in public, and has been for a long time, just about no one does this. It's not because people are ashamed. It's because long guns are reasonably seen as impractical and unnecessary for every day carry by the vast majority of gun owners, let alone non-gun owners. Once again....we ain't Israel. Even in Israel, I would imagine that the pistol is much more commonly seen than the rifle, for reasons of practicality if nothing else.

You are being disingenuous if you insist that there is no difference between the rifle and the pistol. There most certainly is, both in practical capability and lethality, and in the symbolism and societal implications of each.

Symbols can mean many things. You say that a gun is a symbol of violence. Perhaps so. It could also be a symbol of technology or of peace... Wasn't it SAC that used the motto, "Peace through superior firepower"? (though admittedly, they used a presumably heavily-armed bomber, not a gun, as the symbol of that peace) Like it or not, it is just a tool. It's not designed to kill, for if it is, all mine are defective, as the saying goes. It's designed to propel a projectile at high speed in a specific direction. If it is USED to kill, the fault lies with the person who pointed it and pulled the trigger. That some/most people don't want a gun "in their face" is not my problem; I don't want their liberal claptrap in my face, but apparently, I don't get that choice. I don't want their liberal infiltrating my society, my life, my laws, but I can't do anything to silence them as they attempt to quash my rights (which they cannot) and my ability to lawfully exercise them peaceably (which they seem able to do)

Sure, there's a difference between a rifle and a pistol, just as there's a difference between types of handguns and sizes of magazines. Should we allow the prohibition of some of them that some pencil-neck in an office has decided we don't really need? To allow this is to move down that slippery slope (and BTW, I despise that term) toward allowing restriction of more and more until all we are left with is strong language, and the use of that being punishable. It's incremental, and we have seen it in history and we see it today in our own country. I will not accept it.

If one doesn't think carrying an AR, AK, HK-MP5, or whatever else doesn't make us look bad, they are mistaken. It does paint some as paranoids, and that won't be good for us. We are talking about a populace that voted for a person to be president that clearly has a socialist/communist/whatever you want to call it agenda. This has actually happened election after election.

When it comes to guns, just given my friends and family, many seem to fall into the same camp when it comes to OCing: "Why?" These people are voters, and if you scare the sheep, don't be surprised if the law changes to CC only. It is already happening in Wisconsin. OC is legal, CC is illegal. Now they want to make the state CC only, with licenses, with testing/training requirements. Why? Because of all these incidents with the cops and OCers, which started with some third party calling 911. The Supreme court already ruled in Heller that some restrictions are OK. So I guess the real question is, when states and municipalities start banning or restricting OCing of arms, in whatever fashion, do you think the Supreme Court of the US will support or over-turn that law/ordinance?



Why is someone's fear of me smashing into them doing 150MPH on the interstate a valid reason to restrict my speed? Why is their fear of me smashing into them at an intersection reason enough to put up stop lights/signs and require me to stop? There is a safety aspect, folks still view guns as dangerous, and for whatever reason, they view OCing as dangerous. While the majority, for now at least, seems to be OK with these dangerous items in their own homes for protection, for whatever reason, these perceptions change when talking about OCing, "assault weapons", magazine capacity, CCing, etc..

This is the country we live in, and elections have consequences. If the carrying of guns was so important to the people, the next mayor of Indy would be making the carrying of guns in city parks a top priority. It isn't, so that tells me just how important this issue is to the masses.



I disagree. As an avid supporter of free speech, someone calling people names in the public isn't helping my cause. Why? Because people vote. You seem to think like me: While some things might cause discomfort in others, that doesn't mean we should start passing laws. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happens in our society. I do think that many handgun OCers don't have as many issues because many folks assume the person is a police officer. We have had a handful of OCers post just such stories on this forum.



This kind of information can be harmful to some. SOME courts have ruled that OCing isn't PC, in states where OCing isn't illegal (ie: The New Mexico case). Others courts have ruled differently. Name me one Indiana court case where an officer testified he saw a handgun on a person, and the courts ruled the officer didn't have reasonable suspicion or PC to stop the person for an investigation. I'm of the belief that if an officer gets a reasonable person as a witness, or witnesses a person OCing/CCing but gun is showing, that the courts will rule the officer, based upon Indiana law, had at a minimum a reasonable suspicion to stop the person.



No, they weren't. OCing maybe, but not firearms in general. I find it odd that folks would say this. We have tons of states allowing folks to carry weapons. A handful of states are moving towards not even having a license system. Some folks seem to want a wild wild west/Mogadishu type existence, where everyone is walking around with a handgun and battle rifle. I mean, what is the purpose of OCing an AR, AK, MP-5, etc. if not for wanting to mirror current day Mogadishu? Obviously if one wants to carry such a weapon, doesn't that mean they have the thinking that they might actually have a good chance of needing to use it?

I don't think that a Mogadishu style of existence ever really happened in the US. The frontier west was likely similar for a short time period, and I imagine a lot of criminals used the rural area as a means to escape from the law and order that had been established back east. However, as things changed in the nation, I believe the need for having a gun "at the ready 24/7" died with most people. As those attitudes changed, so did various gun laws over the years.



If the Bill of Rights was "God-given", then God must not care all that much, otherwise he would have flooded Chicago, DC, etc.. I believe humans have basic rights, and the ability to defend themselves and their loved ones is such a right. As a county, we established the Constitution, and while folks love to wave their Bill of Rights in front of everyone's face, they seem to cut off the piece about the Judiciary branch of government. You see, if the Bill of Rights was written today, each right would have an * after it. That * would refer the reader back to the section of the Judiciary where it states "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."


It would do so because as of today, we have taken the above to mean that the US Supreme Court can make a ruling as to what exactly each individual amendment means. Proclaiming "God-given rights" sounds nice, but that means that the person making the proclamation can be justified in anything they claim as their right, because 'it comes from God.'

The carry of long guns in public does not make us look bad. The media spins an innocent act and paints it in terms such as "assault weapon" or high-powered or cop-killer or any number of other scary terms and the gullible public takes it, hook, line, and sinker. Personally, I do not even OC a pistol, but I support those who do so responsibly. Likewise, I did not agree with the OC walk a few months ago, so I did not participate in it. I did (and do) support people standing up for what they believe, though I think that the timing of such things needs to be carefully considered amongst a whole host of other factors if we want these demonstrations to have the most positive possible effect. The purpose of OCing a long gun, if not to mirror Mogadishu or some other "paradise"? Quite simply, "because we can". That is, we don't need to justify it to anyone, and while in Mogadishu, people might not carry because they can but because they have to. Personally, I balance that with, "Because I can does not mean that I should." If there comes a day when I think and feel I should, I will. Hopefully, that day will be as a part of a peaceful demonstration only. I must say it really disappointed me to see you bring up the "wild West" argument right out of the Brady playbook... You know better. Sure, the need for people to have a gun at the ready has passed. Just ask anyone living in a major city, those crime-free paradises where LEOs are no longer needed, certainly not with any kind of weapons on them. Oh wait... That's right. Such a place doesn't exist, and our police are being effectively militarized with weapons, technology, armor, armored vehicles, special radios, etc. etc.... and they still aren't stopping crime before it happens, they're just responding to crimes reported.... oh, and attempting/failing to prevent people from using things that some legislators decided were dangerous and putting them in jails and prisons when they do. You know, for their/our own good.

You're correct that the gun laws changed as attitudes did. Unfortunately, they did not change for the better. They changed just like Obama promised "Hope and Change", and we are sooooo much better off now, aren't we?

The Bill of Rights, the document, is not God-given. The rights it protects are. If you believe the Bible, those places have not been flooded because of the covenant made, signified by the rainbow. I don't personally subscribe to that theory. I think it's more "as ye sow, so shall ye reap". We put laws into place that protect criminals and further victimize their victims. We worry about giving them appeal after appeal, such that at this point, it costs more to apply capital punishment than it costs to keep the mopes alive and in prison until they die on their own. We allow laws that disarm the good people and do not restrict the criminal in the slightest. We want to put an end to something, so we declare "war" on it... "War on Poverty", "War on Drugs", "War on Crime".... yet all of those things are still here and worse than ever. Hell, by that logic, we need to declare war on guns, and EVERYONE will have them!

I do take issue with your point about the BoR being written today. Were that to happen, it would have such things in it as the right to pay taxes, the right to be bent over by your government and maybe, if we were lucky, the right to K-Y jelly prior to said bending-over. We might have a right to free speech as long as it did not disparage the government. The RKBA would not even have a passing mention.

Lastly, the phrase, "God-given rights" does not just sound good because anything under its scope is justified to the speaker, it is a phrase with an unimpeachable source: "...We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." It's not someone today inventing this idea. It's been around a lot longer than this country of ours has been. Sadly, we were the last country to recognize it, and more and more, we fail to do so in favor of more rules, more regulation, more enforcement. I do not believe that this trend is unstoppable, but I think it's going to take one hell of a lot of hard work to do it.

Certainly. If an officer was to conduct a traffic stop and got out if his car in dressed in the way you described, I wouldn't consider that offensive, I'd consider that intimidation. Same as if the officer was walking a foot patrol throughout a neighborhood doing. It works both ways. I surely understand that. The things is though, the standard become a bit more serious if it's a police officer... even though every right a citizen has, the officer should have too, right?

Right....and wrong.

The person in the officer's uniform certainly has those rights. S/he is, after all, also a citizen. However, when the person puts on that uniform, s/he becomes an agent of the state and his/her individual rights are voluntarily suborned to his/her powers as granted by the government, which in turn receives them from the People.

Example: I carry a pistol because it is my right to do so. As a LEO, you carry a pistol because you are told to do so. It is part of your uniform when on duty and in some departments, you are expected to have it with you at all times, in all places. Your powers as a LEO are subject to removal if you leave your employment. My rights are subject to removal only by my death.

I think you may have missed my point in my example... In the mall situation, whether an armed citizen or a LEO, I'm not talking about the armed person being in any way directly confrontational. Maybe there was a report of something or other... maybe some dignitary is visiting and the officer is merely guarding an entry into some place or other. Regardless, he's just standing there, armed and armored. Likewise, the armed citizen merely has his rifle slung. He's not doing anything but shopping or sitting in the food court eating a sandwich. It just so happens he has a rifle with him. It's neither offensive nor intimidating to me, but it's worthy of a second look in either case. I'll tell you this, though... I'd be far more likely to strike up a conversation with the guy who isn't wearing a badge, not because I don't like cops (quite the reverse), but because I'd expect the non-LEO to be more approachable... "Nice rifle! Is that a Bushy or Olyarms?" while I'd expect the officer to be more likely to give me a "Move along... I can't talk right now..." or some such.

(OK, maybe more than 2... )

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you, but there is a disorderly conduct statute in Indiana.

IC 35-45-1-3
Disorderly conduct
Sec. 3. (a) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:
(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;
(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or
(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;
commits disorderly conduct, a Class B misdemeanor.
(b) The offense described in subsection (a) is a Class D felony if it:
(1) adversely affects airport security; and
(2) is committed in an airport (as defined in IC 8-21-1-1) or on the premises of an airport, including in a parking area, a maintenance bay, or an aircraft hangar.
(c) The offense described in subsection (a) is a Class D felony if it:
(1) is committed within five hundred (500) feet of:
(A) the location where a burial is being performed;
(B) a funeral procession, if the person described in subsection (a) knows that the funeral procession is taking place; or
(C) a building in which:
(i) a funeral or memorial service; or
(ii) the viewing of a deceased person;
is being conducted; and
(2) adversely affects the funeral, burial, viewing, funeral procession, or memorial service.

So there is. Previous post fixed. I stand corrected. Thanks, Joe, I appreciate that. The error is mine.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Love the 1911]

At this point (reading the first 40 posts, I have these thoughts:



This has the potential to do some good. Perhaps not prosecuted, but at least the caller should be informed that merely carrying a firearm is not unlawful. (That is, if I had my druthers, it would be treated like a call of a "man carrying a Leatherman" or a "woman in a bikini"... neither act is against the law. Now... if the man with the Leatherman is using it in the middle of Circle Center to assemble a bomb or is using it to disassemble some property not his own, that would be actionable, as would the woman wearing the bikini walking down the street, (actively) flashing various body parts at drivers and potentially causing collisions.




Blessings,
Bill

Personally, I would want someone charged with a crime if they didn't call about a woman in a bikini. 12 hr shifts can get boring without the occasional (positive) distraction.

Bill, I couldn't bring myself to read your entire posts but a rep is inbound since you had the patience to write it all out.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Personally, I would want someone charged with a crime if they didn't call about a woman in a bikini. 12 hr shifts can get boring without the occasional (positive) distraction.

Bill, I couldn't bring myself to read your entire posts but a rep is inbound since you had the patience to write it all out.

Thank you. Actually, the bikini thing reportedly did happen.

An older man called 911 one day:

"911, what's your emergency?"

"There's a woman out here on (road) in one of them thong bikinis."

(exasperated voice) "Sir, it's not a crime to wear a bikini What do you expect a police officer to do about this?"

"Nothin'. I jest thought you boys'd want to know."

I love that story.

As to the rest of the post, yes, I admit I sometimes tend to write "books". If you do want to read it all, either print it out or save it or something and come back and read a little more when you can.

Thanks again for the rep!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bond 281]

Apples and oranges. The point of discussion I referenced in my post was whether 911 callers should be punished for MWAG calls on lawful armed citizens, specifically with the way the Indiana code is written. I maintain 911 callers should not be faulted even when the subject of the call is not breaking the law. I particularly stated that whether or not we should have to prove our worthiness to exercise our rights wasn't applicable to that topic.

I made no mention of the difference between stopping a person for investigation with probable cause and hassling a lawful citizen who has not given any indication of unlawful behavior. Nor did I raise the topic of having to have a permission slip to go armed. Please reread my post, including the portion of trnsplntfrmohio's post that I quoted, before taking offense.

My reading comprehension is fine, and I agree with you that 911 callers shouldn't be punished for MWAG calls. However, they at the very least need a stern lecture on not being stupid and calling the cops when somebody was being perfectly peaceable. It is NOT ok for OCers to be subject to harassment, and a call that a person simply has a gun I don't think is probably cause.

As relates to this state, MWAG callers are not ignorant of the law. It is a crime under IC 35-47-2-1 to carry a handgun without a license. It is the armed citizen's responsibility to prove their exemption to this law

YOU seem to be suggesting that these 911 callers know that it may or may not be legal for a person to be carrying, but since they don't know...even though the person isn't acting in any way suspicious...that they are perfectly justified in calling the police and the OCer being subjected to having to "prove" his legality. How is that not the EXACT SAME AS A VEHICLE? It's only legal to drive if you have a license AND insurance, so if anything it's more likely that a person is driving unlawfully than carrying a firearm unlawfully. Am I justified in calling the police if I see somebody driving, just because I'm not certain of whether they are doing so lawfully? Absolutely not, and it would be a shame if the police then pull them over and hassle them and cite them for a trumped up charge just because of my paranoia.

And if you'll reread my last post, I made no mention of "a permission slip" or anything that could remotely be understood as my objection to the requiring of a license, so I'm not sure why you defended that point.

 

[88E30M50]

I am of the opinion that sooner or later we will be at a time when the open carry of a rifle is not only common, but recommended. I don't think we are there yet and we need to be careful of how we act today. The bulk of the sheeple are still undecided in terms of deciding if they think a person with a rifle is a good idea or a bad idea. They are slowly getting used to the idea of open carry of a pistol but are totally unfamiliar with the open carry of a rifle.

When confronted with a situation that they are unfamiliar with, they fall back on anything they can to make sense of the situation. OC of a pistol is becoming more accepted due to it's becoming more common. If a person has not seen someone in Indiana OC a pistol, they are likely to have heard from someone who does and when they do see that for the first time, they are more likely to think 'It's true that more people carry guns'. With no previous exposure to seeing someone OC a rifle, they have nothing in their past to help understand the issue other than what they have seen on TV or in the news. None of which is good for someone legally carrying a rifle. In a state like Alaska where there is a higher chance of having seen someone carry a rifle or spoken to someone that does, the sight of someone OCing a rifle can be understood through either personal or related experience instead of through what they see on the TV.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that we need to remember that it's not always a question of whether or not someone can carry or even whether or not they should carry a rifle, but how we can acclimate the sheep to react positively when we do. It's in all of our best interest that we do get them used to seeing folks carry not only pistols, but eventually of rifles. Until that happens, we need to be conscious of how we do that to keep them from turning to the dark side. Hopefully, we eventually get to the point of this not causing panic:

 

[finity]

As relates to this state, MWAG callers are not ignorant of the law. It is a crime under IC 35-47-2-1 to carry a handgun without a license. It is the armed citizen's responsibility to prove their exemption to this law (whatever you think of the requirement it is not relevant to this discussion).

Yes, but it's not a crime to carry a long gun. Therefore there is no PC to stop & detain or even officially question someone carrying a long gun in public.

Did this person have the means to adequate protect himself in another manner.... yes, he's a CCW holder.

So if he wasn’t a CCW holder you would find his actions completely reasonable? Or would you find some other reason to say he was irresponsible?

Isn't disorderly conduct generally a "catch all" that can be widely interpreted?

I'm not trying to hijack this thread, but it seems an officer has a lot of discretion to use disorderly conduct. Perhaps too much?

Yep.

Can you yell fire in a crowed theater? I mean 1st Amendment, right? It's a legal action, right? Or does one use the application of common sense and how that action will be viewed by the public?

Intent, is the difference. Yes, you can yell fire in a theater, if there is a fire. (and I hope that you would) Yelling fire in a theater, where there is none, with the intent to put people in harms way, is not a form of protected speech. Openly carrying a firearm, where there is no law to prevent it , with no intent to harm or incite, is fine and dandy. Bananas and grapes arguement actually.

Exactly. It’s called “prior restraint”. There is no law specifically against yelling fire in a crowded theater. There is a law against causing injury or riotous behavior. If you yell “fire” in a crowded theater & everybody just yawns then you’ll likely not even have the cops called on you let alone be charged & convicted.

It seems to me that to continue to deny them the tools to exercise their right of self defense after their term of incarceration is served might violate the 8A, however, in that to do so lengthens the term of their punishment, makes them helpless before attackers (Clockwork Orange, anyone?) and seems to me to be cruel. I would agree with enhancing any sentence of a previously-convicted person who uses a weapon offensively, but not the punishment of the mere possession.

Agreed.

Like it or not, it is just a tool. It's not designed to kill, for if it is, all mine are defective, as the saying goes. It's designed to propel a projectile at high speed in a specific direction. If it is USED to kill, the fault lies with the person who pointed it and pulled the trigger.

Oh come now. To maintain any amount of credibility we must be honest enough to admit that the gun is designed to be a lethal weapon. That is a fact that is proven by the historical evolution of the technology.

If people (like you & I & the majority of others) DON’T use them for such it is not because the gun was poorly designed for it’s ultimate function.

If your gun hasn’t been used to kill anything yet then that is only because the [STRIKE]"opportunity" [/STRIKE] necessity (better word) hasn’t been presented yet. I mean, that is why you carry a gun for self-defense & not a sling shot. They both will propel said projectile at a high rate of speed in a particular direction, will they not? One is designed way better for killing than the other & is the weapon of choice for armies & civilians alike for that very reason.

To try to say that a gun is not designed to kill is as logical as saying that a broadsword is just designed to cut things, a grenade is just designed to make a loud noise & a nuclear warhead is just designed to make things really warm.

That some/most people don't want a gun "in their face" is not my problem; I don't want their liberal claptrap in my face, but apparently, I don't get that choice. I don't want their liberal infiltrating my society, my life, my laws, but I can't do anything to silence them as they attempt to quash my rights (which they cannot) and my ability to lawfully exercise them peaceably (which they seem able to do)

Wow, this thread was doing so well, too. You had to go & spout your own form of claptrap didn’t you. You see, claptrap & BS comes in all political flavors – liberal, conservative & even libertarian.

Rights restrictions are just as much (if not moreso) a problem from the right as it is from the left.

Anti-gun BS even comes in on both sides of the political spectrum. Try to leave politically divisive claptrap & BS out of this debate, please.

Right....and wrong.

The person in the officer's uniform certainly has those rights. S/he is, after all, also a citizen. However, when the person puts on that uniform, s/he becomes an agent of the state and his/her individual rights are voluntarily suborned to his/her powers as granted by the government, which in turn receives them from the People.

Example: I carry a pistol because it is my right to do so. As a LEO, you carry a pistol because you are told to do so. It is part of your uniform when on duty and in some departments, you are expected to have it with you at all times, in all places. Your powers as a LEO are subject to removal if you leave your employment. My rights are subject to removal only by my death.

While I agree with BoR above, I want to put a finer edge on it.

YOU, as a LEO, have NO RIGHTS. NONE. YOU, as a LEO, only have the authority that WE, the people, allow you to have. YOU, as a LEO, can be disarmed by US, the people, any time we can pass a law. YOU, as a LEO, can be denied any other right through the legal system that WE, the people, care to pass a law about.

YOU, as a LEO, don’t have the right to bare arms, or the freedom of speech, or to your religion (as it affects your job performance) or even the right to kill someone in “self-defense”. You can only legally do that because it’s written into law. Otherwise, it would be a violation of the Constitutional restriction on the deprivation of life (by the government – i.e. YOU, as a LEO) without due process of law.

YOU, as an agent of the government, are what the Constitution was written to protect US from.

YOU, as a citizen, have every right that any other citizen has. Once you are not acting as an agent of the government (i.e. you get arrested for a criminal act while acting under color of law) then all your rights are restored.

LEO’s may not like those concepts but they are true nonetheless. Because LEO’s don’t get that is the reason why we have the problems with police abuses that we have.

Where, oh where, is Dredd?

As to the rest of the post, yes, I admit I sometimes tend to write "books".

Yeah, I know. I have no idea how you can write so much. I could never do that.

 

[JDonhardt]

If I were to patrol the borders of your property and walk up and down the streets of your neighborhood with an AR or an AK, who here would not "check me out"? Who here would leave me alone because I was exercising my rights to OC?

 

[finity]

If I were to patrol the borders of your property and walk up and down the streets of your neighborhood with an AR or an AK, who here would not "check me out"? Who here would leave me alone because I was exercising my rights to OC?

I don't think that anybody would just plain ignore someone in the above scenario. Would I be more observant? yep. Would I take some action to make sure that me & mine are safe if the guy is a nut-job? yep that's just self-preservation.

The point that most are making (well, at leat I am) is that there is nothing the police can legally do to someone carrying a long gunon public property. They have no PC to stop them for ANY crime. The most they can do (legally) is engage them in "consensual" discussion. If the guy doesn't want to say a word, there's nothing more that can be done until or unless the guy commits a real crime.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I have just PM'd the following to Finity in reply to two points he made in response to my last post:

I spoke of "liberal claptrap", yes. I spoke of "liberal ", yes. You know well from at least two prior discussions ... that I do not believe that anything a liberal says is claptrap or BS. I most certainly do believe that anyone... liberal, conservative, whoever who "just doesn't want a gun in their face" is spouting BS, and I don't want any part of it. As you and I both discussed long ago, MOST of the argument against guns comes from the Left. Certainly not all, not by a long shot, but I refer to it as "liberal claptrap" because of that majority, not to offend you or anyone else of your similar belief.
...
On the subject of the gun being just a tool, regardless of the design purpose, it is just a tool. It takes human action to use it to kill, and that was the purpose of my comment. A knife was originally designed only to kill, but today, we use them for all sorts of things... yet it can still be used to kill if put to that purpose by its user.

Again, I meant no offense to you by that phrase. Apologies if any was taken.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

If I were to patrol the borders of your property and walk up and down the streets of your neighborhood with an AR or an AK, who here would not "check me out"? Who here would leave me alone because I was exercising my rights to OC?

The closest I can come to answering your question, since it was asked openly, is that yes, I would leave you alone unless you were on my property.

Ex: For the last two summers there was a late-teenage kid who walked by our house a couple of times per week, walking (most probably) down to the river about 1/2 mile from my house. He carried a rifle that looked like a Marlin .22 or a Ruger 10/.22. I live on the edge of a city of about 10,000 people. I never once questioned him or detained him, nor called police about him to ask that he be questioned.

I watched his body language, I looked to see if he had a magazine inserted, I watched to see if he was "chasing" someone or something. The kid just whistled his way happily through my neighborhood and turned toward the east toward the river. The only thing that was of concern to me was if he was going to approach my property. He didn't. I didn't give him a 2nd thought until I saw him walking through the neighborhood the next time.

 

[Htrailblazer]

So since the 2A says we have the right to keep and bear arms, and it does not say what kind and how many arms. It would be ok to walk around with a bomb,rpg, mp5 and any other weapon I choose. Yes I know there are laws against some of the things above but that is against what the 2A says. So I should be able to as long as I dont intend to use them to harm others. This guy just wanted some attention and he got it. I dont feel bad for him at all.

 

[Bill of Rights]

So since the 2A says we have the right to keep and bear arms, and it does not say what kind and how many arms. It would be ok to walk around with a bomb,rpg, mp5 and any other weapon I choose. Yes I know there are laws against some of the things above but that is against what the 2A says. So I should be able to as long as I dont intend to use them to harm others. This guy just wanted some attention and he got it. I dont feel bad for him at all.

Actually, as I wrote above in the first part of post #68, per the literal interpretation of the 2A, you should be able to walk around with them even if you do intend to do harm to others. If you never actually do that harm... let's say you change your mind... who have you hurt? No one at all.

I liken it to a post I made yesterday in re: Officer Moore of IMPD and the slimeball who shot him. I wrote that I'd typed out a post yesterday morning saying that I hoped he came to harm many times prior to his trial. I chose to delete that post before I hit "enter", because that would run counter to our justice system. I'd still shed no tears if it happened, but I want to know that he's had his chance to defend himself against charges brought against him. Under the 1A, I'm entitled to say whatever I want against him until and unless I incite someone else to carry out that action. Truth be told, I'm still entitled to say what I want even then, but you bet your sweet bippy I'll be held responsible for the consequences, as will whoever carries out the described action... and rightfully so in both cases.

The 2A is a part of the whole Constitution and is thus a restriction not on the people but on the government they create(d).

Blessings,
Bill