Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/22/2006 12:28:15 PM EDT
The appeals court also pointed to a 1998 opinion of the Oklahoma Supreme Court that held "there is no absolute, common-law or constitutional right to carry loaded weapons at all times and in all circumstances."

Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:29:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 12:30:27 PM EDT by roboman]
Dude, what part of "shall not be infringed" do they (or in this case you) not understand?
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:30:45 PM EDT
That defends on you define "arms" The intention of the second (backed up in the federalist papers) was for every american to own and keep arms on his person as a great equalizer. While it being loaded is common sense, it wasn't worded that way. Lawyers win and lose cases on semantics.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:31:55 PM EDT
No, it does not violate the SA because of this


at all times and in all circumstances


Sorry, but even the first has limits.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:33:07 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:34:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Aimless:
Taken out of context that statement is fairly meaningless

"there is no absolute, common-law or constitutional right to carry loaded weapons at all times and in all circumstances."

So inmates in a jail should be allowed to carry guns? No one can restrict anyone from bring a gun into their home or business? A judge can't prevent members of a gang from coming armed into a courtroom where their leader is on trial for drug charges?




Yup. I love these little games though.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:34:42 PM EDT
None of the rights enumerated are absolute under all circumstances.
The classic first ammendment freedom of speech argument is yelling fire in a crowded theater.
A balance is stil required to ensure your exercise of rights does not infringe on others rights.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:39:29 PM EDT
I agree with Aimless. It doesn't violate the 2A as written. It's a little too blanket of a statement. When one is in the custody of the state (i.e. arrested, in jail, or in prison) then you lose several rights including the RKBA. That loss of rights is through your own actions which you control (unless it's a case of false imprisonment). Otherwise, I would say the statement is a violation of the 2A. If one is not in the custody of the state, then the RKBA applies at all times.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 12:44:17 PM EDT
I would agree with you, Aimless.

Not even LE can carry in jails.

Link Posted: 2/24/2006 10:26:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
I would agree with you, Aimless.

Not even LE can carry in jails.




Sure they can. What do you think them guys in the towers or walls have got? (No, Airsoft is not an available answer.)
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 10:39:35 PM EDT
Prison guards working the gates/towers have firearms, however the guard inside the prison, close to the prisoners is unarmed.

When I take someone to jail; before I can enter the arrest processing area I have to drop all my weapons except for OC and the Taser.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 8:48:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR:
Prison guards working the gates/towers have firearms, however the guard inside the prison, close to the prisoners is unarmed.

When I take someone to jail; before I can enter the arrest processing area I have to drop all my weapons except for OC and the Taser.



But weren't we discussing a statement not meant to be a blanket statement as a blanket statement and out of context at that? as a basis for this whole thread?

In other words most philosphical absolutes really aren't.

We can all easily find situations where the is a legal restriction on what seems to be a monolithic right.

Free Speech? restricted in many ways, noise, perjury, libel/slander and so on

Freedom of Assembly? Not in my yard you don't.

Religion? The first church of Nekkid Virgins seducing cub scouts> not gonna fly.

Bear Arms? As noted certain places etc.
Top Top