Gun-Politics.ORG - Brady Campaign Declares War on Starbucks!

Aguila Blanca

25th February 2010, 19:24

Yeah, now we just need 5 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices to agree that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated. Most predictions are cheerily optimistic, but "It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings."

However, getting the 2nd Amendment incorporated will just be the start. After that, it'll take some enterprising plaintiff and an equally enterprising attorney (or three) to file and win a Federal lawsuit for deprivation of civil rights and/or discrimination before we really get traction.

I'm sure someone will point out that RKBA is not specifically cited in Federal anti-discrimination laws. Discrimination is prohibited on the basis of race, color, creed (religion), ethnicity, gender, and maybe a couple of other factors I don't recall at the moment. Having a pistol strapped to your waist isn't mentioned. But ... neither is using a wheelchair, a walker, or carrying an oxygen bottle, yet the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) is considered to be civil rights, anti-discrimination legislation, and violations of the ADA are prosecuted directly by the U.S. Department of Justice as civil rights violations. I predict it will take awhile for even Federal prosecutors to wrap their heads around the concept, but since the 2A has been affirmed as an individual right, it applies to all people and thus it is "civil." There was never any question that it is a right, the only question was whether it was an individual right or a collective (state) right. Now that we have that answered, we have an acknowledged "right" that applies to the People as individuals (a civil right).

Bingo.

However ... I am not a lawyer.

Rich-D

26th February 2010, 15:32

Aguila Blanca, You would have been a great lawyer! And the great one's are few and far between.

Dial 1911 for Help

26th February 2010, 17:22

Yeah. The 5,000,000 bad ones are giving the other three a bad name!

Aguila Blanca

26th February 2010, 17:48

There's a pretty decent lawyer on this forum. I was hoping he might chime in on this discussion.

Rich-D

26th February 2010, 23:36

Yeah. The 5,000,000 bad ones are giving the other three a bad name!

And you should have been a stand up comedian! :)

Dial 1911 for Help

27th February 2010, 10:24

I'm not giving up my day job!

Woodberg

14th April 2010, 23:59

Just to chime in for my first post to this forum, the Bill of Rights absolutely does not grant the right to keep and bear arms and it is not a civil right. It is a God given right that is inherently known and has been since the beginning of time. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant us any rights, its purpose was to limit the government and to define what rights can never be taken away from citizens. In fact the founders were very divided about whether to even include a bill of rights at all for this very purpose. They didn't want people to think that the Bill of Rights defined our rights. If the Bill of Rights actually granted rights, then an amendment could take that right away. The way it is written, free men inherently have that right.

Rich-D

15th April 2010, 09:00

I agree with you, however government tends to erode our natural rights utilizing restrictions in the name of society.

Alan in WI

1st May 2010, 21:55

This my first post here and I think it is an excellent place to start. I live in Wisconsin and have been here all my life. Wisconsin is one of the few states that does not have concealed carry. About 3 years ago it made it all the way through and was on the Governor's desk to be signed. He refused stating that Wisconsin doesn't need Concealed Carry because we have open carry. He vetoed it! Back when I was much younger and enjoyed a beer or two, (this was in the early 70's) this discussion came up in one of the local taverns I was patronizing. I told them that Wisconsin had an open carry law and it was legal to walk down the street with a loaded firearm on your side. Most everyone disagreed with me. I volunteered to call the local sheriff department and talked to an officer who was lucky enough to answer my call. He told me I was 100% correct but also warned me or anyone else for that matter that if I did I would be arrested for disorderly conduct or other charges they could come up with. Well right after our wonderful Governor vetoed the Conceal Carry a guy out in one of the rural suburbs was out planting trees in his own yard not bothering anyone. One of his neighbors saw him and called the police. Guess what, they came ordered him to the ground, disarmed him cuffed him and took him in! Does this sound like we have open carry? This got very little press and I am surprised the NRA had nothing about it unless I missed it. Well all I have to say is I am all for Starbucks. I love their coffee and their attitude. I did read somewhere that some individuals did go into a Madison Starbucks with their guns on so law enforcement must be taking a better look at the laws. I think law abiding citizens who carry a firearm should be thanked by our government officials not criticized. The police cannot be everywhere and a gun in a law abiding citizens hand could surly be a big plus to keep law and order.

Alan

DoubleTap45

1st May 2010, 22:14

I'm NOT a weasel, I'm a trained ferret and ferret's (paralegals) WORK for a living. ;)

-Ray

Rich-D

2nd May 2010, 13:04

You stated your case exceptionally well!

Welcome Aboard!
Rich

Dial 1911 for Help

3rd May 2010, 14:53

"The Bill of Rights doesn't grant us any rights, its purpose was to limit the government and to define what rights can never be taken away from citizens."

Well, I don't agree with "define what rights" so much as "list a few examples of the many rights..."

Remember, the Constitution is a complete and explicit list of government powers, not of the rights of citizens. If the citizens want to do something and the government claims it has the power to stop them, it's the government that must comb the document to find a clause or a principle clearly justifying their position, not US. Anything not explicitly covered, the bosses (that's us) win.

It's a minor complaint; in general I fully agree with your points.

Patriotic

3rd May 2010, 18:23

I believe the Constitution states that powers not specifically given to the federal government nor prohibited by it are given to the states. I believe the 2A is a declaration that the federal government cannot infringe on gun ownership which would also mean the states could not either. In other words it is the right of all citizens, a basic Constitutional right. I know there is an issue of “incorporation” but I think that issue is a moot point seeing the Constitution was so specific. I think with the Constitution being the law of the land, a basic, and states having their own laws; those state laws cannot go against rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

Dial 1911 for Help

3rd May 2010, 19:06

"I believe the Constitution states that powers not specifically given to the federal government nor prohibited by it are given to the states."

Amendment X says "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."

Which I would take as to mean "Anything we haven't specifically mentioned in the Constitution is none of the feds' beeswax. It may be an issue for state governments, or it may even be none of their business, depending upon the specific issue, but we can say with certainty the feds have NO business messing with it!"

PapaAMB

26th May 2010, 02:24

Obviously, if a private business (like Starbucks) wants to ban firearms from their stores that is their right. Some people would prefer to buy their coffee at a place that does not allow guns. That's their choice. Some people will choose not to buy coffee from a place that does allow guns. It is not worthwhile to attack a person or group because of the opinion that they have. While concealed permits are available, and open-carry is legal in Washington State, where I live and Starbucks is headquartered, I can't see why open-carry advocates are targeting Starbucks, specifically. What is the reasoning there?

Dial 1911 for Help

26th May 2010, 10:47

The open carry advocates didn't "target" them. The drooling morons down at Brady are lashing out at them because they don't call the cops every time someone engages in this particular legal behavior in one of their stores. I don't think anyone has said they don't have the right to have a no guns policy in their stores if they want to. In California, Peet's coffee houses and California Pizza Kitchen did so, and people concerned with gun rights just don't go there any more.

I think if anyone's mad about anything it's the hypocrisy of the Constitution-shredding gun-grabbing Brady's for believing it's OK for a business to have a policy caving to THEIR political beliefs, but NOT OK to have one which isn't even the opposite of that but rather simply neutral, treating gun grabbing coffee drinkers the SAME as gun owners, allowing either to patronize the business equally.

PapaAMB

26th May 2010, 14:51

After futher reading on the subject I see that I misunderstood the issue. Open-carry advocates have begun targeting Starbucks in response to the Brady Campaign asking that company to ban the open carry of guns in their stores. I still don't understand, though, why the people represented by the Brady campaign (which has statistics showing that they represent a majority of Americans in their desire to increase patron "comfort" by restricting open carry) should be targeted when their goal is to reduce gun violence. The decisions will be made by the corporation in a way that maximizes profit. It remains to be seen what that decision will be. The irony is that Brady supporters sign petitions while open-carry advocates just assert their rights and carry their sidearms into stores- and at a time when a majority of Americans feel less safe when they see fire arms being carried in the open (making them less likely to frequent those businesses). The mehod might backfire in the end.

georgeshannon

26th May 2010, 16:17

Personally, I believe the majority of Americans feel more safe when an armed policeman is sitting in the same cafe as they are.

Dial 1911 for Help

26th May 2010, 16:53

I still don't understand, though, why the people represented by the Brady campaign (which has statistics showing that they represent a majority of Americans in their desire to increase patron "comfort" by restricting open carry) should be targeted when their goal is to reduce gun violence.
How do you conclude that that is their goal? Certainly none of their "work" that I've seen would lead to that conclusion. "Gun violence" (at least the kind we as a society have a right to prevent) is perpetrated by bad, lawless people. THAT's what the statistics show, yet the Bradys' focus seems always to be on more and more onerous and restrictive laws which will have zero effect on those lawless people (except perhaps to make their predations safer, and to create for them excellent signage designating the safest places to ply their "trade") since they're.....lawless! It will burden only the law abiding, who by definition are not the problem!

In addition to flying in the face of that common sense, statistics in fact PROVE the fallacy of the Bradys' approach (assuming, despite their leftist politics, that their goal is a society in which fewer innocents are harmed by bad guys) because the areas in this country with the fewest anti-rights laws and highest percentages of firearm ownership have FEWER crimes. Same in places like the UK and Australia where firearm ownership rights have been severely infringed upon. Let me give you an analogy: Assume I say that my goal is to cure AIDS, and my first move towards that goal was going to be to shoot all the pet dogs in your neighborhood. Would you be as solicitous of me as you are the Brady's? After all, my intentions are good...what difference should it make if my means logically have nothing to do with my stated goal, and are in fact, despicable?

http://tomwade.me/tw/2ndamendment/images/gunfreezone.jpg

The only question that remains is the reason for the discrepancy between what they say they want and the time-proven results of the methods they're using to get it. Are they really so stupid they can't grasp the obvious implication of the statistics? Or....is their goal entirely different from what they publicly claim, a goal they must feel would fail to gain the approval of their audience (else why not be candid?)

Neither alternative says much for them, but the second is truly insidious.

Dial 1911 for Help

26th May 2010, 17:02

Personally, I believe the majority of Americans feel more safe when an armed policeman is sitting in the same cafe as they are.
Why would it need to be a cop? Wouldn't a cop's boss (citizen) be just as good?

PapaAMB

26th May 2010, 22:31

Dial 1911 for Help

27th May 2010, 00:01

Dial 1911 for Help

27th May 2010, 11:01

The issue at hand is not a law but a policy for a private place of business. In the end it will come down to economics. If there is a show of force by open-carry advocates, which has the effect of deterring (or at least making uncomfortable) non-gun-owning individuals then the result might be a reversal of the current decision by Starbucks management which, as I understand it, is to make no restrictions on gun owners. If the Brady group has their way then the management will consider restricting the open carry of guns in their stores- perhaps regionally, since laws and cultures vary greatly from one region to another. But why attack individuals who voice their opinion because theirs is different than your own? Calling names does nothing to change my opinion of anything (except the name-caller). I think that a petition or letter signed by those of us who agree with the policy upheld by Starbucks management would be a more effective tool than showing everybody our guns.
Despite my previous posts, I actually agree with a lot of what you have to say. Starbucks is a private venue, and they have the right to say whom they will do business with and face the consequences in the market (or they did till the government decided to infringe on that right like they do on so many others). You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. All true, and relevant.

The only thing that disturbed me was what seemed like an unreasoning affection for the Bradys despite posts giving logic and evidence that raises serious questions about their stated goals.

I'm also a little put off by your strategic advice that we shouldn't get angry at those who would limit our rights and fight back by speaking the truth plainly. THEY certainly don't censor themselves, and fights don't usually work out too well when only one side does all the fighting.

georgeshannon

27th May 2010, 11:42

"Why would it need to be a cop? Wouldn't a cop's boss (citizen) be just as good?"

Why would what need to be a cop? I believe cops are citizens.

Aguila Blanca

27th May 2010, 12:41

I think that a petition or letter signed by those of us who agree with the policy upheld by Starbucks management would be a more effective tool than showing everybody our guns.
But if the underlying goal is to enjoy the freedom to openly carry a firearm for self defense, what difference does it make if the point is made by signing a petition, or by buying coffee in a Starbucks while carrying openly? Assuming the petition results in ... nothing (meaning no change in policy), then those who wish to carry openly will do so and those who are intimidated by such will continue to protest until open carry (or ALL carry) is decided against by Starbucks.

I think it makes a better statement to "desensitize" Starbucks patrons by having as many well-dressed, well-groomed people as possible patronize Starbucks while carrying openly. The Brady bunch try to convey firearms owners as homicidal maniacs. The more people can see that "gunnies" are just like everyone else, the less they are likely to buy into the lies, misinformation and disinformation spewed by the Brady bunch.

Petitions aren't the key; education is the key. You posted that a majority of people are afraid of people with guns. Well, WHY is that? How many of those people have actually been assaulted by anyone with a gun (or at all)? Their opinions are driven by the misleading and outright false propaganda disseminated by the antis. No number of signatures on a petition to Starbucks' corporate office can do anything at all to show these people that their fears are based on lies. Seeing peaceful, law-abiding citizens who happen to wear guns can be much more effective in erasing the negative programming.

Dial 1911 for Help

27th May 2010, 12:49

Why would what need to be a cop? I believe cops are citizens.Well, sure they are, but when one says "citizen" when one could have said "cop" I would think it would be implied that they're talking about citizens who aren't cops. You said that many people would feel more comfortable having an armed cop in a cafe with them. I'm sure that's true, but I don't know why it would need to be a cop for them to feel comfortable, and it could be interpreted as accepting one of the premises of the antis, which is that guns are safe only in the hands of government.

Aguila Blanca

27th May 2010, 12:56

BTW -- The Brady bunch does not "represent" a majority of Americans. That majority the Brady bunch claim to "represent" for the most part did not ask the Brady bunch to represent them, and I think it is safe to say that if the Brady bunch and other anti-gun groups weren't so busy spreading lies about guns and gun owners, most of that alleged majority would have no opinion whatsoever on the question of whether or not I should be allowed to wear a gun in Starbucks.

I happen to live in a state that issues carry licenses, but most people aren't even aware of that. The result is ... if anyone notices someone wearing a gun in a place such as McDonalds, or Starbucks, or wherever ... they simply assume it has to be a cop. Nobody in the anti camp dares complain about a cop wearing a gun (after all, for now they try to tell us that only the police have the training and experience to carry guns safely), so nobody gets alarmed at seeing a gun on the belt ... even if the person is in "civvies" (must be a detective).

So it obviously is NOT the sight of a gun that upsets people; in fact, it is the fear whipped up by the antis' lies that a "civilian" with a gun is likely to go postal at any moment that actually generates objections to allowing us to carry. Of course, the Brady bunch never admit that police officers go bonkers and kill people, just like, well ... people. The then-chief of the Tacoma, WA, PD was in a divorce proceeding. He met his wife in a mall parking lot to pass the kids over in a scheduled exchange of custody. Instead, he murdered the wife and then shot himself in the head -- with, IIRC, his service weapon. Right in front of the children.

More recently, a young sheriff's deputy in a mid-western state was dumped by his girlfriend. So he went to a party she was attending and killed her and several friends.

Such incidents are not all that rare. As a percentage compared to total number of police officers, against the number of firearms murders compared to total population (or, better, compared to total number of legal gun owners), I'll bet the police percentage comes off worse than the overall percentage. You'll never hear that from the Brady bunch.

georgeshannon

27th May 2010, 13:03

PapaAMB stated "and at a time when a majority of Americans feel less safe when they see fire arms being carried in the open ..."

I stated "Personally, I believe the majority of Americans feel more safe when an armed policeman is sitting in the same cafe as they are.

What is all this discussion about cops and citizens? I'm glad I'm not the only one having trouble referring to previous messages in this thread. BTW, where is the "reply with quote" button in this forum? Without being able to quote a previous statement in our messages, a lot of confusion exists. LOL

Aguila Blanca

27th May 2010, 13:53

BTW, where is the "reply with quote" button in this forum? Without being able to quote a previous statement in our messages, a lot of confusion exists.
The quote function works, you just have to enter the tags manually. I believe when the site was initiated the owner stated that he had deactivated the "quote" button because people abuse it, quoting the entire body of a lengthy post when all they're responding to is one or two sentences. The High Road (.us) forum uses the same software and they also have the quote button turned off.

Now, if people would just learn how to quote, life might get better ...

What is all this discussion about cops and citizens?
I do believe you opened that up, with your statement about people feeling safer ("more safe" is grammatically incorrect) in a coffee shop with an armed policeman.

Why should that be? Why should people feel more safe when an armed policeman is present, yet feel LESS safe when an armed citizen (non-police) is present? Each has a firearm. Each has the blessing of the state to carry said firearm, and to use it to defend third parties. In fact, ALL citizens actually have the right to effect an arrest. So, if your point is that policemen aren't any different from the rest of us ... I would agree. So why should the presence of an armed police officer make a Starbucks customer feel safer, while my armed presence (allegedly) makes the customer feel less safe?

Suppose I dress like all the State Police detectives around here do, and the customer sees me and thinks I am a police officer. Now he/she feels safer ... but if he/she knew I was not a police officer he/she should suddenly undergo an epiphany and cower in abject terror at the mere sight of a "man with a gun"? The same man who made said customer feel MORE safe, until it was pointed out that he isn't really a cop?

Propaganda is the cause of the paranoia, pure and simple.

Dial 1911 for Help

27th May 2010, 14:03

What is all this discussion about cops and citizens? I'm glad I'm not the only one having trouble referring to previous messages in this thread. BTW, where is the "reply with quote" button in this forum? Without being able to quote a previous statement in our messages, a lot of confusion exists. LOL

George, the quote button is that little quill writing on a page in the lower right corner of each post. It will quote whatever you highlight before hitting it, so if you just hit the button without highlighting it won't quote the entire post, as you might be expecting.

As far as the cops vs. citizens thread, I was a little confused when you said that many people would feel more comfortable with an armed officer in the cafe with them. I couldn't understand why you specified that it be a cop. I trust cops pretty well but no more so than the average guy on the street, and that was the reason for my question. There, I've tried twice to explain and if that's not clear enough, I doubt if I can do any better.

georgeshannon

27th May 2010, 14:28

George, the quote button is that little quill writing on a page in the lower right corner of each post. It will quote whatever you highlight before hitting it, so if you just hit the button without highlighting it won't quote the entire post, as you might be expecting.

That works. Thanks to both of you for your help with that. I was hitting that button and being taken to the home page.

I do not draw a distinction between an armed citizen and an armed employee of the city, county, or state. When I am armed, I am a policeman. We are all citizens. We are all armed. We are all authorized to defend ourselves and our associates with deadly force. The only difference is how we dress, and that's not necessarily different.

I love the point about someone being content about seeing an armed detective but shrinking in horror when informed the armed individual is not a detective. I'm sure there are people who would react exactly like that. Scarey isn't it?

My point was that I believe the majority of Americans feel safer rather than less safe when they see a law abiding armed citizen seated near them in a cafe. Its the armed criminals one must be wary of. How does one tell if an armed individual is law abiding or a criminal? An armed criminal is usually stealing your valuables or causing harm to you.

Dial 1911 for Help

27th May 2010, 14:57

When I am armed, I am a policeman.Ah, OK, in that mode we are in agreement.

How does one tell if an armed individual is law abiding or a criminal? An armed criminal is usually stealing your valuables or causing harm to you.Well, the bad guys tend not to open carry, unless you count waving it around ordering people to the floor. (IOW, I agree with your point)

Aguila Blanca

28th May 2010, 10:31

The bad guys also tend not to carry an expensive weapon in a nice leather holster that by itself cost more than most bad guys spend on the gun.

Dial 1911 for Help

28th May 2010, 12:12

Geez, what do you spend your leather? My most recent purchase, a Galco Fletch, set me back $50 brand new.

PapaAMB

29th May 2010, 00:01

If the name calling (tame compared to what the left feels free to call us) offended you and distracted you from the meat of my post, I apologize.

Do you care to say why you focused on the 1% name calling and completely ignored the vast majority of my post which I think was a pointed and detailed answer to the question YOU posed: "I still don't understand, though, why the people represented by the Brady campaign (which has statistics showing that they represent a majority of Americans in their desire to increase patron "comfort" by restricting open carry) should be targeted when their goal is to reduce gun violence."

Do YOU have an unstated agenda that would go unserved by discussing the issue openly on its merits rather than continuously claiming confusion over our distaste for the Brady's and their machinations despite our explanations?
My agenda is to become an informed gun owner. I am politically active by nature and I feel that, while the name calling is distracting, the crux of your argument is an emotional response not related to my point. I cannot argue that criminals are undeterred by an armed citizenry- I agree with you wholeheartedly. I was using the Brady campaign's point about the comfort of the public to illustrate an alternative method for maintaining the economic viability of the Starbucks decision to defer to existing gun law in their private policies. If you disagree then you could say as much, but your ranting will not change my opinion on the matter.

Aguila Blanca

29th May 2010, 01:31

Rich-D

29th May 2010, 06:41

I do not draw a distinction between an armed citizen and an armed employee of the city, county, or state. When I am armed, I am a policeman. We are all citizens. We are all armed. We are all authorized to defend ourselves and our associates with deadly force. The only difference is how we dress, and that's not necessarily different.

I agree with Aguila Blanca,. The law recognizes the difference between a Police Officer and a Private Citizen. A Police Officer never has to retreat, while in some jurisdictions a citizen having an avenue of escape must do so. A Police Officer may pursue a suspect for any violation of law or ordinance, a private citizen may only do so in limited circumstances depending on the violation of law and the jurisdiction of the offense. A Police Officer may detain a person at gunpoint on mere suspicion that the person is wanted or a crime may have been committed. A private citizen has no such authority, and may be charged with a crime if the person is not wanted or has not committed a crime.

The law on making a citizens arrest varies greatly between jurisdictions, as well as the laws of self defense. The laws, rules and regulations for arrest and utilization of deadly force for police officers do not vary so greatly between jurisdictions.

georgeshannon

29th May 2010, 21:01

Not to put too fine a point on it, if you are not a sworn peace officer, with a badge, and recognized by your state as a sworn law enforcement officer ... then you are NOT a policeman. You are an armed citizen.

I am a self employed policeman. I don't believe an individual working for the city has any more rights to police than I do. As comandant of the New Mexico State Militia, I have written my police rights and responsibilities into the charter of the militia. Where does the authority to police come from?

You may not see any distinction, but the law does.

Is that why people feel safer with armed policemen sitting near them rather than armed citizens?

And on another related topic, we were discussing gun-free-zone signs. I wonder if a business owner actually knows what they're doing when they post one of those signs on their business. I mean, isn't that about the last kind of sign a rational being would want to post? Tell the bad guys that no law abiding armed citizens are inside to prevent their crimes. That's like an invitation to terrorism. A sign like that should come with a warning for those folks who haven't thought this through. Loved the cartoon posted earlier in this thread. Thanks for that.

Aguila Blanca

30th May 2010, 00:19

Is that why people feel safer with armed policemen sitting near them rather than armed citizens?
Yes, it is.

And on another related topic, we were discussing gun-free-zone signs. I wonder if a business owner actually knows what they're doing when they post one of those signs on their business. I mean, isn't that about the last kind of sign a rational being would want to post? Tell the bad guys that no law abiding armed citizens are inside to prevent their crimes. That's like an invitation to terrorism. A sign like that should come with a warning for those folks who haven't thought this through.
Your point is obvious ... and it should be equally obvious that those who post such signs either have NOT thought it through, or have acted on the basis of legal advice that the potential liability for allowing armed customers on the premises outweighs any potential benefit. If you wish to dispute that, don't sound off on me ... take it up with the attorneys and insurance companies who tell business owners to post the signs.

Aguila Blanca

30th May 2010, 00:29

I am a self employed policeman. I don't believe an individual working for the city has any more rights to police than I do. As comandant of the New Mexico State Militia, I have written my police rights and responsibilities into the charter of the militia. Where does the authority to police come from?
More to the point ... where does YOUR authority come from? The police authority comes from state law. It rather sounds like your authority comes from you. And what is this "New Mexico State Militia" you say you command? The official militia for the state of New Mexico is the New Mexico State Guard (formerly the New Mexico State Defense Force), and the commander-in-chief thereof is the governor of New Mexico.

So, in essence, you are an anarchist. Your state has an authentic militia but you didn't want to join that, so you made up your own.

Rich-D

30th May 2010, 06:22

According to the Constitution of New Mexico the State Militia is the National Guard.

New Mexico Constitution: http://vlex.com/source/new-mexico-constitution-1350/toc/19

Article XVIII. Militia
The militia of this state shall consist of all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, except such as are exempt by laws of the United States or of this state. The organized militia shall be called the "national guard of New Mexico," of which the governor shall be the commander in chief.

New Mexico National Guard https://www.nm.ngb.army.mil/

I am a self employed policeman. I don't believe an individual working for the city has any more rights to police than I do. As comandant of the New Mexico State Militia, I have written my police rights and responsibilities into the charter of the militia. Where does the authority to police come from?

In the USA and in all of it's States the right to police emanates from duly elected government entities! There are no self appointed Police Officers, nor anyone with the power to attain such rights by writing them into a charter. While some States like PA may recognize Corporation Police, they have no police power beyond the confines of the Corporation.

If you can provide a Statute or Constitutional provision which provides you with the power you mention, please provide it, as I am an eager learner!

georgeshannon

30th May 2010, 09:04

Elected representatives have the power to police. The mayor, sheriff, and governor are the executives of government police forces.

There are private security firms and private detective agencies. Why not private police forces? Doesn't our second amendment authorize armed, organized militias? Private militias are fairly commonplace; at least down here on the border.

I was interested in the references to the state constitution authorizing and defining the state militia as the national guard. Didn't know that before. Thanks for that.

Kind of makes the armed citizen and the private militia sound like vigilantes or anarchists doesn't it? We have armed police and an official national guard for our safety. Why would anyone need to carry a gun or organize a militia? Do you suppose the constitution was written that way to prevent the government from usurping power from the citizen?

BTW, Rich is that a west highland terrier beneath the fatigue cap?

Aguila Blanca

30th May 2010, 10:47

According to the Constitution of New Mexico the State Militia is the National Guard.

New Mexico Constitution: http://vlex.com/source/new-mexico-c...ion-1350/toc/19

Article XVIII. Militia
The militia of this state shall consist of all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, except such as are exempt by laws of the United States or of this state. The organized militia shall be called the "national guard of New Mexico," of which the governor shall be the commander in chief.

New Mexico National Guard https://www.nm.ngb.army.mil/
And the State Guard, as in several other states, is a subsidiary of the National Guard. However, not being "National Guard," the State Guard cannot be called up by the Federal Giovernment so as not to be available to the state when needed. In a sense, the State Guard is sort of "organized, unorganized militia." They have their own web site, confirming that their C-I-C is the governor: http://ocscorp.tripod.com/nmsg/

georgeshannon

30th May 2010, 11:03

If you can provide a Statute or Constitutional provision which provides you with the power you mention, please provide it, as I am an eager learner!

When we are born onto this earth, God authorizes us to do whatever we want to do if it is within our mental and physical capabilities to do so. Some men believe they have the ability to set forth rules which prohibit certain behaviors (laws). Forming a private, armed, organized militia violates neither God's nor man's laws in the US.

georgeshannon

30th May 2010, 12:28

We're straying slightly off topic here. I hope no one minds because I enjoy this discussion. Its great to discuss these issues with like-minded fellows who can discuss without getting personal and irate.

Obligatory on-topic thought:
I did read the Brady Bunch web site and their survey results. They surveyed 600 people nationwide. That's an average of 12 people per state. That's about one person per major city/town. Given their margin of error, I'm surprised they bothered to draw any conclusions.

Back to the other discussion:
A google search of militia on the border shows many different militias are at work patroling the south border. The Minutemen are the most well-known militia. There are many others. Most don't have web sites yet. I know mine doesn't.

I patrol my neighborhood. General Johnson patrols his neighborhood. General Anderson patrols his neighborhood. Corporal Harris...well, we won't go into what Corporal Harris does yet.

I will tell you this though, the city police can write speeding tickets all day long and not stop people from speeding past my house on this residential street. The limit is 25 and I swear some folks drive 50 down our street. That endangers children and pets. I only had to shoot the tires out of five passing cars. Now, what little traffic goes by, goes by very slowly. Word travels fast about this very effective deterrent to speeding. Did you know shooting at cars is only a misdemeanor?

Patriotic

30th May 2010, 15:35

Georgeshannon, I realize your intent in organizing your militia is for the protection and freedom of your state’s citizens, and to help in the enforcement of the laws but don’t you think shooting out the tires of a vehicle going 50 mph also endangers the very people you wish to protect? You should consider that “only a misdemeanor” is also breaking the law and that is what you would want to protect. (I would hope) Have you ever thought that committing your misdemeanor may one day cost an innocent person their life?

I can only provide an opinion on what you have provided here and hope I have misjudged your intent. You also realize that just maybe one of those motorists could interpret your action as a threat with deadly force and return fire at you.

Rich-D

30th May 2010, 16:15

When we are born onto this earth, God authorizes us to do whatever we want to do if it is within our mental and physical capabilities to do so. Some men believe they have the ability to set forth rules which prohibit certain behaviors (laws). Forming a private, armed, organized militia violates neither God's nor man's laws in the US.

Pennsylvania has a law prohibiting paramilitary training!

§ 5515. Prohibiting of paramilitary training.
(a) Definitions.--As used in this section the following
words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this
subsection:
"Civil disorder." Any public disturbance involving acts of
violence by assemblages of three or more persons, which causes
an immediate danger of or results in damage or injury to the
property or person of any other individual.
"Explosive or incendiary device." Includes:
(1) dynamite and all other forms of high explosives;
(2) any explosive bomb, grenade, missile or similar
device; and
(3) any incendiary bomb or grenade, fire bomb or similar
device, including any device which:
(i) consists of or includes a breakable container
including a flammable liquid or compound and a wick
composed of any material which, when ignited, is capable
of igniting such flammable liquid or compound; and
(ii) can be carried or thrown by one individual
acting alone.
"Firearm." Any weapon which is designed to or may readily be
converted to expel any projectile by the action of an explosive;
or the frame or receiver of any such weapon.
"Law enforcement officer." Any officer or employee of the
United States, any state, any political subdivision of a state
or the District of Columbia and such term shall specifically
include, but shall not be limited to, members of the National
Guard, as defined in 10 U.S.C. § 101(9), members of the
organized militia of any state or territory of the United
States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the District of
Columbia, not included within the definition of National Guard
as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 101(9) and members of the armed forces
of the United States.
(b) Prohibited training.--
(1) Whoever teaches or demonstrates to any other person
the use, application or making of any firearm, explosive or
incendiary device or technique capable of causing injury or
death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or
intending that same will be unlawfully employed for use in,
or in furtherance of, a civil disorder commits a misdemeanor
of the first degree.
(2) Whoever assembles with one or more persons for the
purpose of training with, practicing with or being instructed
in the use of any firearm, explosive or incendiary device or
technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, said
person intending to employ unlawfully the same for use in or
in furtherance of a civil disorder commits a misdemeanor of
the first degree.
(c) Exemptions.--Nothing contained in this section shall
make unlawful any act of any law enforcement officer which is
performed in the lawful performance of his official duties.
(d) Excluded activities.--Nothing contained in this section
shall make unlawful any activity of the Game Commission, Fish
and Boat Commission, or any law enforcement agency, or any
hunting club, rifle club, rifle range, pistol range, shooting
range or other program or individual instruction intended to
teach the safe handling or use of firearms, archery equipment or
other weapons or techniques employed in connection with lawful
sports or other lawful activities.
(June 11, 1982, P.L.476, No.138, eff. 180 days; Mar. 19, 1992,
P.L.18, No.7, eff. imd.)

Rich-D

30th May 2010, 16:27

The limit is 25 and I swear some folks drive 50 down our street. That endangers children and pets. I only had to shoot the tires out of five passing cars. Now, what little traffic goes by, goes by very slowly. Word travels fast about this very effective deterrent to speeding. Did you know shooting at cars is only a misdemeanor?

While I highly doubt that law enforcement would view the shooting at an occupied vehicle as a misdomenor. A misdomenor can land you in jail for a year on each incident. And the misuse of firearms could result in losing the abilty to own any firearms.

New Mexico Code: 31-19-1. Sentencing authority[;] misdemeanors; imprisonment and fines; probation.
A. Where the defendant has been convicted of a crime constituting a misdemeanor, the judge shall sentence the person to be imprisoned in the county jail for a definite term less than one year or to the payment of a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or to both such imprisonment and fine in the discretion of the judge.

B. Where the defendant has been convicted of a crime constituting a petty misdemeanor, the judge shall sentence the person to be imprisoned in the county jail for a definite term not to exceed six months or to the payment of a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500) or to both such imprisonment and fine in the discretion of the judge.

C. When the court has deferred or suspended sentence, it shall order the defendant placed on supervised or unsupervised probation for all or some portion of the period of deferment or suspension.

georgeshannon

30th May 2010, 16:46

You should consider that “only a misdemeanor” is also breaking the law and that is what you would want to protect.

I guess you're right. Committing a crime to prevent a crime spree is unacceptable. We'll need to install speed bumps instead. But then everybody suffers for the crimes of a few. Isn't there a way we can make the criminals pay instead? Sometimes I think installing speed bumps is a crime. Makes about as much sense as posting a No-Guns-Allowed sign on a restaurant.

georgeshannon

30th May 2010, 16:54

While I highly doubt that law enforcement would view the shooting at an occupied vehicle as a misdomenor.

We actually discussed this in our concealed carry class. Suppose someone is stealing your truck and you get your gun. If you point it at the guy stealing your truck, you're gulity of aggravated assault. If you shoot your own tires out preventing him from driving off, you're only guilty of a misdemeanor. If you hop in the back of the truck, you can shoot and kill the guy by claiming a car jacking was taking place.

So Rich, is that a westie in your avatar?

georgeshannon

30th May 2010, 17:05

Pennsylvania has a law prohibiting paramilitary training!

Wow. Yes they do. Its a misdemeanor to train someone if you know that someone will join with two or more people to damage or injure someone else's person or property. Not a bad law since it excludes things like fathers teaching their sons to shoot.

Rich-D

30th May 2010, 17:22

So Rich, is that a westie in your avatar?

That's Puff, he is a Bichon Frise. I always had large dogs in the past. But, Puff was a gift from my son and his wife when he was 12 weeks old. Puff turned out to be an 18 lb dog with the heart of a lion and my best buddy!

Aguila Blanca

30th May 2010, 18:53

Back to the other discussion:
A google search of militia on the border shows many different militias are at work patroling the south border. The Minutemen are the most well-known militia. There are many others. Most don't have web sites yet. I know mine doesn't.
Unless they have changed their ground rules, the Minutemen are not supposed to be armed, and they are not supposed to engage, ony observe and report. That it not the function of a militia, and I have never seen or heard anything suggesting that the Minutemen consider themselves a militia.

Here's a link to their web site: http://www.minutemanproject.com/

Can you point to anything on their site that suggests they are a militia, or that they are armed when engaging in border surveillance?

Aguila Blanca

30th May 2010, 18:56

I will tell you this though, the city police can write speeding tickets all day long and not stop people from speeding past my house on this residential street. The limit is 25 and I swear some folks drive 50 down our street. That endangers children and pets. I only had to shoot the tires out of five passing cars. Now, what little traffic goes by, goes by very slowly. Word travels fast about this very effective deterrent to speeding. Did you know shooting at cars is only a misdemeanor?
I would consider shooting at moving cars that are occupied by human beings to be assault with a deadly weapon, and IF you didn't get killed by return fire I would expect you to be charged with something a lot more serious than a misdemeanor.

FWIW -- speeding is not a "crime." Shooting when/where not allowed by law is, even if only at the misdemeanor level. Your analogy doesn't get to the starting blocks.

Patriotic

30th May 2010, 19:33

Georgeshannon, One thing you may want to consider to slow down the traffic in your neighborhood is to have a life sized photograph made of one of your local cops holding a radar gun, mount it on a stiff backing and place it partially behind a tree so the driver can see it. I am sure your local police will cooperate. The idea is to move the picture to different locations and sometimes have the police setup a real radar trap the same way. I read where this works very well especially when real police get involved.

This is not a new idea, police have been parking empty squad cars on Interstates just to slow people down.

georgeshannon

30th May 2010, 21:15

Can you point to anything on their site that suggests they are a militia, or that they are armed when engaging in border surveillance?

I haven't looked at their website yet but the news reports are pretty clear:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june05/minuteman_4-06.html

"The Internet-based group calling itself the Minuteman Project began patrolling a 23-mile stretch of the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona April 3. Volunteers, some armed with guns or knives, are watching for illegal migrants and then reporting them to the U.S. Border Patrol. According to the groups organizers, over 200 volunteers have arrived already.

The Minutemen say they don't plan to use their guns."

Just looked at the website and the pictures of the minuteman crouching near the border fence with his gun was a dead giveaway. Have you looked at the website?

Aguila Blanca

30th May 2010, 21:51

I haven't looked at their website yet but the news reports are pretty clear:

...

Just looked at the website and the pictures of the minuteman crouching near the border fence with his gun was a dead giveaway. Have you looked at the website?
Lots of people do things that are not sanctioned by the parent organization. YOU said the Minuteman Project is a militia -- which means an organization that is armed, trains with arms, and has as its function the armed defense of the country.

I asked you to show me anything from the Minuteman Project web site that says they are a militia, or that they sanction armed interaction with the illegals. I am well aware that some of the observers take the attitude that they ain't goin' out there if they ain't armed. (I don't blame them -- but even an AR-15 isn't a match for a Mexican Army platoon.) That alone does not make the organization a militia, and if it violates the rules or S.O.P.s of the organization it sort of means that the photo isn't worth much more than the time it took you to look at it.

To repeat: YOU wrote
A google search of militia on the border shows many different militias are at work patroling the south border. The Minutemen are the most well-known militia.
Where is there ANY documentation that the Minuteman Project is a militia?

georgeshannon

30th May 2010, 22:35

Where is there ANY documentation that the Minuteman Project is a militia?

Do a google search on minuteman militia and you'll find many references. Here's one:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/686670/illegal_immigrants_shot_and_killed_by_minutemen_militia/

Aguila Blanca

30th May 2010, 23:06

Do a google search on minuteman militia and you'll find many references. Here's one:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/68667...emen_mi litia/
Yeah. Next you'll cite The Onion as an authoritative source. I asked for documentation, not innuendo. You made the statement they (The Minuteman Project) are a militia. Please back up the statement with substantiating evidence.

Aguila Blanca

30th May 2010, 23:30

Do a google search on minuteman militia and you'll find many references.
Well, I did as you suggested. Most of the Google hits were to historical essays about the original, colonial minutemen. There was an article by the notoriously biased and left-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center that claimed the minutemen are neo-Nazis and white supremecists who fantasize about murder ... and then there was one by a UCC (United Church of Christ) minister that was based primarily on information from the Southern Poverty Law Center.

In short ... nothing to support your claim that there are many militias operating along the border. In fact, nothing to indicate that even ONE militia is operating along the border. Now ... the way this generally works is, you made a statement. I questioned it. Rather than support your statement, you sent me off to do your searching for you. I ran the search you suggested and came up with ... nothing. So ... you made a statement. I question it. It is now up to you to provide some proof of your assertion(s).

And keep in mind ... a bunch of rednecks or skinheads with guns is not inherently a militia. A militia is an organization, with a structure and a chain of command. You claim to be the "Commandant" of the New Mexico State Militia (which does not show up in my Google searches). How many militiamen do you have under your command?

John

31st May 2010, 10:11

And keep in mind ... a bunch of rednecks or skinheads with guns is not inherently a militia. A militia is an organization, with a structure and a chain of command.

Not only that. Structure and chain of command are not the only things characterizing a group as militia.

Rich-D

31st May 2010, 11:19

No matter the organization, be it the National Guard, State Guard or Militia. The lawful authority they possess derives from elected government, with the Governor of the State in command. As Aguila Blanca pointed out the President of the US may call upon the National Guard in times of need.

Any other organization would not be deemed to have the responsibility or authority to act within the framework of New Mexico law as a Militia.

Frank

31st May 2010, 11:21

I do not draw a distinction between an armed citizen and an armed employee of the city, county, or state. When I am armed, I am a policeman.... You most assuredly are not.

...I am a self employed policeman. I don't believe an individual working for the city has any more rights to police than I do...And that is ridiculous.

If you have any legal authority for these preposterous notions, cite it.

For an example of what can happen when a private citizen who lawfully carries a gun indulges the fantasy that he gets to play cop, see: http://gresham.katu.com/content/man-opens-fire-theft-suspects-police-arrest-him.

kenhwind

31st May 2010, 13:10

Interesting thread;

No matter the organization, be it the National Guard, State Guard or Militia. The lawful authority they possess derives from elected government, with the Governor of the State in command. As Aguila Blanca pointed out the President of the US may call upon the National Guard in times of need.

Any other organization would not be deemed to have the responsibility or authority to act within the framework of New Mexico law as a Militia.
__________________
I do believe that this is also true here in Florida, I have read through the gun laws and related subjects several times. But have no quotes or links at the moment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by georgeshannon
I do not draw a distinction between an armed citizen and an armed employee of the city, county, or state. When I am armed, I am a policeman....

You most assuredly are not.

This is also true here in Florida; You absolutety cannot take the law into your own hands, if anything goes wrong it is your fault.

Rich-D

31st May 2010, 13:50

I am happy to see you participating again! :)

Folks who do not know the law, or who know it and do not adhere to it, are a real danger to those in their proximity. They also provide the anti-gun establishment with ammunition to attack our rights!

I would hope that anyone, especially visitors reading this thread will digest the fact that they need to know the laws, rules and regulations of the jurisdiction they are in. And for our common good, adhere to them.

kenhwind

31st May 2010, 14:15

Thanks Rich, glad to be back. Been checking in lately, but haven't seen too much activity until today.

I agree about knowing the laws. Florida law is pretty specific on the issue refered to in this thread.
I've read and re-read the laws and when in doubt or curious I go back and read them again.

Aguila Blanca

1st June 2010, 08:41

Various state laws regarding militias are interesting, and the PA law is a good example. It does not actually make it illegal to conduct paramilitary training. It makes it illegal to do so for the purpose of carrying out insurrection. I think my own state's law has a similarly-worded prohibition.

Hmmm.

What does that mean, and how does that square up with the U.S. Constitution? The purpose of having an armed populace, and hence an armed militia, is the defense of the Constitution. That's one of the primary reasons for the 2nd Amendment. And the writings of the Founders are clear that they expected (and provided for) the militia to take up arms against the government if the government became overly tyrannical. But who gets to define when the action of a militia is "insurrection"? The government.

So it could be argued that such laws are, themselves, unconstitutional. Given the predominately liberal leaning of most courts today I would not expect such an argument to gain any traction, but it seems clear to me that such laws prohibit "unorganized" militias from training to do exactly what they are supposed to do.

kenhwind

1st June 2010, 11:42

Various state laws regarding militias are interesting, and the PA law is a good example. It does not actually make it illegal to conduct paramilitary training. It makes it illegal to do so for the purpose of carrying out insurrection. I think my own state's law has a similarly-worded prohibition.
Florida has similar provisions in its statues.

Also:
Q. What if I see a crime being committed?

A. A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman. But, as stated earlier, deadly force is justified if you are trying to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. The use of deadly force must be absolutely necessary to prevent the crime. Also, if the criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly force to stop him, because you would no longer be "preventing" a crime. If use of deadly force is not necessary, or you use deadly force after the crime has stopped, you could be convicted of manslaughter.

Frank

1st June 2010, 12:30

...the writings of the Founders are clear that they expected (and provided for) the militia to take up arms against the government if the government became overly tyrannical. But who gets to define when the action of a militia is "insurrection"? The government....That sort of brings us full circle to the fundamental, real life paradox of the right to rebel. In effect, you have a right (or duty) to rebel only if you win. If you lose, you're just a traitor and get hanged for your trouble.

A government that openly acknowledges that the populous has a right to take up arms against it, is, in effect, being suicidal.

Aguila Blanca

1st June 2010, 12:37

That sort of brings us full circle to the fundamental, real life paradox of the right to rebel. In effect, you have a right (or duty) to rebel only if you win. If you lose, you're just a traitor and get hanged for your trouble.
Right. That's the BIG "Catch-22."

In effect, you have to be able to back up a claim that, "I didn't leave the government and the Constitution, the government left the Constitution and me. I'm only setting things right." That's a tough argument to sell from a jail cell. Even tougher from a coffin.

kenhwind

1st June 2010, 17:49

Unfortunately any form of armed action in the current political climate will be playing right into their hands

Frank

1st June 2010, 18:38

...any form of armed action in the current political climate will be playing right into their hands...Of course it would.

And I'd also like to suggest that anyone indulging himself in fantasies of a revolution to herald the coming of a new golden age of liberty reflect on the fact that as a mechanism for crushing tyranny and promoting freedom, revolution has a really lousy track record.

The American Revolution was unique. What about the French Revolution? How about the Russian Revolution? The Chinese Revolution that gave us Mao, perhaps? How about the ouster of Basitsa in Cuba? Then there have been the various revolutions, often protracted, taking place with dismaying regularity in one third world country or another. The vast majority of revolutions wind up simply replacing one despot with another.

Dial 1911 for Help

1st June 2010, 19:02

I am politically active by nature and I feel that, while the name calling is distracting, the crux of your argument is an emotional response not related to my point....I was using the Brady campaign's point about the comfort of the public to illustrate an alternative method for maintaining the economic viability of the Starbucks decision to defer to existing gun law in their private policies. If you disagree then you could say as much, but your ranting will not change my opinion on the matter.Based on the content of your posts, I'm pretty sure you're responding to someone else. :D

Dial 1911 for Help

1st June 2010, 20:11

What does that mean, and how does that square up with the U.S. Constitution? The purpose of having an armed populace, and hence an armed militia, is the defense of the Constitution. That's one of the primary reasons for the 2nd Amendment. And the writings of the Founders are clear that they expected (and provided for) the militia to take up arms against the government if the government became overly tyrannical. But who gets to define when the action of a militia is "insurrection"? The government.But that statement almost amounts to saying that rebellion should be legal. No government can be expected to officially sanction rebellion. Now that doesn't mean that's not what they've got coming to them a lot of the time, but my point is that revolution is always going to be extra-legal at best. Since winners get to write the history, what determines whether you were right or not to rebel, is whether you won or lost.

Aguila Blanca

1st June 2010, 23:31

my point is that revolution is always going to be extra-legal at best. Since winners get to write the history, what determines whether you were right or not to rebel, is whether you won or lost.
See posts #72 and 73, above.

kenhwind

2nd June 2010, 11:26

The vast majority of revolutions wind up simply replacing one despot with another.
Yes indeed it usually does. I was trying to be objective, not advocating, should have left out the word unfortunately. We here some talk about another revolution and I seriously doubt that the results would be favorable.
The individuals who advocate an armed insurrection should note that Hitler used a violent act as a means to strip civil rights and impose gun control, and that is usually the first results of a rebellion.

DoubleTap45

2nd June 2010, 12:19

What Beck does best is lay out historical perspective on current events. He has been doing weekly segments on the Founders. To the Progressives the Founders are dire threat and MUST be lied about continually. If you read schoolbooks they are barely mentioned. When they are it's usually as "old slave owning rich white men" that we don't have to pay any attention to.

We do NOT have sufficient men and women of the character of Washington, Adams, Mason, Jefferson, Franklin et al anymore. We have TOO MANY political opportunists, exactly what John Adams warned against. He said that the Constitution and all aspects of our government were designed to thwart the frauds, charlatans, usurpers (!!) and other schemers that would eventually arise.

Without specifically mentioning the Progressives he warned us against those who would want to "get past the Constitution" and move on. To do so would require rewriting history, devaluing individual liberty and eroding the role of Faith. Gee, we haven't seen ANY of that have we?

Beck also warns against becoming radicalized. He points out that this is exactly what a usurper like what occupies the Oval Office would love. ANY excuse to impose martial law and suspend the CONUS. WHY did you think Nancy Pelosi stalked through the throng protesting the Health "Care" bill with that gigantic gavel? She was POKING the dog trying to provoke it.

-Ray

PapaAMB

15th June 2010, 10:11

How is this relevant to the thread? Does Glenn Beck have a segment where he talks about Starbucks? I might watch that. Otherwise I will try to avoid hearing his over-the-top, lie-filled, anger-mismanaged show.

DoubleTap45

15th June 2010, 11:37

offstage with Cam re: Starbucks. He was comfortable with the position that Starbucks was willing to remain in full compliance with local laws pointing out that the company was strictly in business to sell coffee. He also noted with amusement the vitriol some leftists have heaped on Starbucks.

He compared it to Michael Jordan who was criticized for letting his sneakers be advertised on Fox. He said "Hey, Republicans buy sneakers too." It would be very nice if more businesses associated with the Left or at least NOT with traditional America took stands like that.

As for lie-filled that is nonsense. I have both a legal and historical background. He is 100% accurate on his stories regarding the Progressive Movement, Sixties racicals etc.

-Ray

PapaAMB

15th June 2010, 11:41

I think it makes a better statement to "desensitize" Starbucks patrons by having as many well-dressed, well-groomed people as possible patronize Starbucks while carrying openly. The Brady bunch try to convey firearms owners as homicidal maniacs. The more people can see that "gunnies" are just like everyone else, the less they are likely to buy into the lies, misinformation and disinformation spewed by the Brady bunch.

This is an oversimplification of the issue. I am "less comfortable" (as mentioned in the Brady study, not "afraid" as you have stated) around openly-carrying individuals NOT because of the Brady campaign, but because of the culture in which I was raised. There are clear, cultural differences between people in our country that must be addressed. Another example of this is your assertion that "well-dressed, well-groomed" people will make me more comfortable- but this is very subjective! Must they be wearing a tie? Can they be wearing a beard? Are people who do not dress well less trustworthy?

Through no fault of my own I was born into one culture. I have been blessed with many opportunities to experience and appreciate many others- a lot of people have not had such opportunities.

As for the lies and disinformation, to which are you referring? Not that I agree with everything they are doing, but I do think that less gun violence would be a good thing.

PapaAMB

15th June 2010, 12:04

He [Beck] is 100% accurate on his stories regarding the Progressive Movement, Sixties racicals etc.

-Ray

He has nothing but rhetoric. The only fascism in America happened under our last administration with indefinite detention.

Frank

15th June 2010, 12:20

I think it makes a better statement to "desensitize" Starbucks patrons by having as many well-dressed, well-groomed people as possible patronize Starbucks while carrying openly. The Brady bunch try to convey firearms owners as homicidal maniacs. The more people can see that "gunnies" are just like everyone else, the less they are likely to buy into the lies, misinformation and disinformation spewed by the Brady bunch. This is an oversimplification of the issue. I am "less comfortable" (as mentioned in the Brady study, not "afraid" as you have stated) around openly-carrying individuals NOT because of the Brady campaign, but because of the culture in which I was raised. There are clear, cultural differences between people in our country that must be addressed....A few things:

[1] I'm not really convinced that folks seeing well dressed, well groomed, polite and gracious people walking around openly wearing guns necessarily leads the non-gun people in the direction of thinking that "gunnies" are just like them. Around here the common response was, "Those nut jobs with guns, there ought to be a law." To many people in many places, a well dressed guy with a gun is just a well dressed wacko.

We do need to remember that to many, "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and wear a gun, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." (with apologies to St. Paul)

[2] That said, I would hope that the more thoughtful among us would recognize that cultural bias can just a poor rationalization for being closed minded. Cultural biases, however, do exist, and if we wish to be able to effectively overcome them, we must accept the fact of their existence and look for effective ways to overcome them.

[3] So as we go about our normal, everyday lives, we do need to be open and active good ambassadors for guns and shooting.

Frank

15th June 2010, 17:26

Gentlemen, cool it please.

PapaAMB

15th June 2010, 19:57

... That said, I would hope that the more thoughtful among us would recognize that cultural bias can just a poor rationalization for being closed minded. Cultural biases, however, do exist, and if we wish to be able to effectively overcome them, we must accept the fact of their existence and look for effective ways to overcome them.

...

I agree completely with this statement. I was hoping that my own experience could help do just that- overcome some biases regarding the issue at hand.

I believe that non-violent action to raise awareness about the legality (and, for some, the necessity) of carrying a firearm can be more effective than verbal attacks against people who oppose the open carrying of firearms in a private business like Starbucks.

kenhwind

16th June 2010, 00:26

Gentlemen, cool it please.
Thank you Frank, been avoiding this thread, it started to drift.

DoubleTap45

16th June 2010, 12:22

That's all 8 in the "X" ring KenWind. While some folk are getting hot under the collar re: Starbuck's remember that their own administrative directive to the franchisees instructs them to adhere strictly to local ordinances. IOW, if the law allows open carry they are NOT to make an issue of it, same for CCW.

Remember they are in the business of selling premium grade coffee and coffee based drinks NOT to be political even if they are based in Seattle. I have to give them kudos for a common sense attitude toward CCW and open carry laws. That is rare in today's environment and they deserve support for this. If you don't want to pay $6 or more for a latte get a small "Pike Place" regular coffee for $1.19 once in a while just to thank them for having common sense and using it.

As for keeping our cool I STRONGLY recommend we consider the Ghandi quote that Beck has revived. "Use Truth as your hammer and non-violence as your anvil. Whatever does not stand up to that hammer and anvil must be rejected as false and invalid."

There are, to be sure, many on the Left who would like nothing more than to see us lose our collective cool. They tried to claim we had with that doctored photo from Phoenix with the "white racist with an assault rifle and pistol". Then Fox news displayed the entire photo on air and it was a BLACK GUY with no magazine in the AR and a legal open carry 1911 in a holster. All were perfectly legal in AZ. He was protesting taxes and other issues but was seized upon to cast Tea Party supporters as "typical angry white racist males".

Nancy Pelosi strolled through the crowd with an oversized gavel and a smug look on her face to try and POKE the Tea Party people into outbursts. Jesse Jackson Jr. made the predictable claims of racist slurs but NOBODY had any proof despite all the camcorders and cell phones present. That died a quick media death also.

-Ray

Patriotic

16th June 2010, 21:19

I think back to a dark period in our history when “help wanted” signs were appended with the statement “Negros, Irish and Italians need not apply” and Negros had to sit in the back of the bus and use different restrooms and water fountains, when Negros were not served in restaurants. We overcame that period and realized a freedom was for all and not a select few. Here in the present day we have groups (Brady campaign) who are attempting to do the very same thing with law abiding citizens who are exercising their lawful right to carry a firearm.

DoubleTap45

16th June 2010, 22:00

limits the 2nd Amendment to the elites, the connected, the famous and powerful while shafting the average citizen. Alright, AFTER Chicago. TECHNICALLY you can both own and carry in NY City but Hades will freeze solid before the average resident can do so unless we get what we want in MacDonald and then force it on Bloomberg.

-Ray

kenhwind

17th June 2010, 14:16

I have mixed feelings about open carry in public places, but here in Florida open carry of a weapon is illegal, with some exceptions. When Florida passed its concealde carry law/firearm weapons laws, it wasn't illegal to open carry. Some FL gunowners started parading down busy main streets in south FL and within days open carry was prohibited.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against open carry, but I feel that discretion would be a better course of action especially in large crowded places, because some people aren't comfortable with guns out in the open. Concealed carry eliminates the bias because out of sight out of mind.

Aguila Blanca

18th June 2010, 15:33

But the fact that some people are uncomfortable can be taken as incontrovertible proof that more people NEED to carry openly, so as to desensitize the soccer moms.

A great many years ago I was on remote assignment for a week in Tucson, AZ. There was a large shopping mall a couple of blocks from my hotel so, having nothing better to do one evening, I went mall crawling. Not long after I started my reconnaissance, I spotted a guy strolling through the main mall area wearing cowboy boots and a big Colt SAA revolver strapped to his hip. And ... nobody paid any attention. It took me a moment to remember that I was in Arizona, but that apparently was all the explanation needed.

NOBODY PAID ANY ATTENTION TO IT.

That's the lesson we need to learn. As long as we continue to hide our guns so as to not scare the soccer moms, the soccer moms will continue to be alarmed any time they see a man with a gun. They need to be shown that there is nothing to fear from an honest man wearing a firearm.

Frank

18th June 2010, 15:49

But the fact that some people are uncomfortable can be taken as incontrovertible proof that more people NEED to carry openly, so as to desensitize the soccer moms...Sorry, but I just don't buy that. Sometimes continued exposure to an uncomfortable stimulus can have a desensitizing effect. But sometimes it can make folks more obstinate and intransigent. And sometimes those who are made uncomfortable can join together and take adverse [political] action.

There are plenty of examples of rights being lost because enough folks didn't like the ways in which they were being exercised.

Over the years, in many communities, we have seen many zoning and other laws adopted restricting how you can use your own property. In some places you may not work on your car in your own driveway in view of the public street. In some places you must get design approval of remodeling or landscaping visible to the public. In some communities, you may not park or store large vehicles like boats on trailers or RVs on your property so as to be visible to the public. These sorts of restrictions have in large part been the result of strong enough public sentiment that some things previously lawfully done by private parties on their own land were unseemly or unattractive.

Open carry of a loaded gun used to be legal in Florida. Open carry of a loaded gun used to be legal in California.

If someone finds open carry to be a convenient way to carry his gun, and it's legal, that's fine as far as I'm concerned. But some of us are skeptical of its value as a tactic to further the RKBA. And even to the extent it can be a useful tactic, it, like all tactics, may be useful at some times, in some places, under some circumstances and for some purposes, but not others. The wise activist knows the difference and chooses tactics most appropriate to the time, place, circumstances and purpose.

Patriotic

18th June 2010, 18:28

Frank, I can see your point but why aren’t people concerned about a LEO carrying a loaded firearm? Is it because they assume the LEO has been trained in the use and safety of the firearm, that the LEO’s background has been checked for any criminal background or possibly because the job of a LEO is to “protect and defend”? I guess you could say those are the same requirements a citizen must have to qualify for a concealed carry permit. Maybe we don’t stress enough what it takes to have a CCW permit. I can understand that “open carry” does not have the requirement for a firearm safety course but in order to purchase the firearm, you do need to submit to a background check.

Frank

19th June 2010, 00:46

...Is it because they assume the LEO has been trained in the use and safety of the firearm, that the LEO’s background has been checked for any criminal background or possibly because the job of a LEO is to “protect and defend”? I guess you could say those are the same requirements a citizen must have to qualify for a concealed carry permit. Maybe we don’t stress enough what it takes to have a CCW permit.... This is a really lousy argument and needs to be abandoned. It simply doesn't hold water and can not stand up to scrutiny.

[1] It is not the job of a private citizen with a concealed weapon permit to "protect and defend."

A private citizen has no legal duty to intervene or act in an emergency. He may have liability if he does so, and he will have no employer or agency to stand up for him. He may use force only when legally justified; but he never has a legal duty to use force.

An LEO will be obligated under the policies and procedures of his employing agency to take certain actions in the event of an emergency, such as a crime in progress. If he fails to do so, at the very least his future employment will be affected. If he does so, and is sued, his agency will protect him as long as he acted within policy.

[2] The training required of a private citizen for concealed weapons permit is nothing like that of an LEO.

Many States actually have no training requirement for the issuance of a concealed weapons permit. Some require only some minimal showing of the most basic familiarity with firearms. Often mere completion of a Hunters' Educations or NRA Basic Handgun class will suffice, and such classes really have nothing to do with practical weapons craft in a violent encounter.

Even in those States with a specific training requirement, it is extremely modest. It's usually a very basic one day class. Only a few States, I believe, require as much as two whole days of training.

On the other hand, most States require considerably more firearms and use of force training for an LEO. In California, for example, the minimum required is a 64 hour course, with 40 hours of instruction in the legal aspects of arrest and use of force and 24 hours firearms training, with satisfactory demonstration of proficiency. Many agencies provide and require additional training. And LEOs must re-qualify at least annually.

[3] LEOs are subject to a far more stringent screening and background check process than private citizens applying for a concealed weapons permit.

Private citizens applying for a concealed weapons permit need merely to pass a records check. This is the same sort of background check folks like school bus drives need to pass. It merely establishes that as of the time of the check the person whose fingerprints were submitted does not have a record of a criminal conviction appearing on the data bases checked.

On the other hand a person who has completed the extensive educational requirements for a sworn LEO position will be subject to a far more extensive and intrusive screening:

[a] He will have to undergo and successfully complete a psychological evaluation.

[b] He will complete an extensive personal history questionnaire and be subject to multiple interviews probing his personal and social history.

[c] He will be subject to a background check that goes well beyond a mere records check and will include interviewing his friends and neighbors.

[d] And he still won't get the job unless that leadership of the employing agency decides that he satisfies their standards.

[e] If he gets the job, he will be on probation for at least a year and carry out his duties under the close monitoring of a field training officer.

DoubleTap45

19th June 2010, 07:10

Ray's Fifth rule of Gun Safety: EVERY bullet has a lawyer attached to it. Ask any LEO about being "guilty till proven not guilty".

-Ray

Frank

19th June 2010, 11:43

....Ask any LEO about being "guilty till proven not guilty"....A good point. An LEO, as a condition of employment, does not have a right to remain silent. He is required to cooperate with any investigation of his conduct, and he must answer questions. In some cases he can be required to submit to a polygraph examination.

Patriotic

19th June 2010, 11:44

[1] It is not the job of a private citizen with a concealed weapon permit to "protect and defend."

True it is not their “job” to protect and defend the general public, it is their “right” to protect and defend themselves. It is also true a private citizen has no employer or agency to stand up for them which makes it more important that a private citizen understands the consequences of his actions. Again you are correct that a LEO is obligated by policies and procedures set by his employing agency but then again a CCW holder is also obligated by the procedures and policies as the condition of his permit. Doesn’t it all come down to taking responsibility for your actions?

[2] The training required of a private citizen for concealed weapons permit is nothing like that of an LEO.

Again I agree with you that LEO training is much more extensive because of the job they are tasked to do but then again self defense is just a small aspect of their training. Seldom will a private citizen encounter what LEOs face in the performance of their job but self defense doesn’t require that stringent of a training regimen. I realize the training requirement for CCW permits vary from state to state but responsibility for your actions basically doesn’t. Either the use of deadly force is justified or it is not; both LEOs and private citizens share that same responsibility.

[3] LEOs are subject to a far more stringent screening and background check process than private citizens applying for a concealed weapons permit.

I also agree with this statement and again it is necessary for the performance of the job they are tasked to do. I am not advocating a citizen police force but do advocate for the right of a law abiding citizen to have the means of self defense. I firearm carried on a person in a holster, belt or pocket is no threat to anyone with the exception of a criminal intent on doing this person harm.

With all of the background checks and screening done to become a LEO there will always be those who slip through the cracks as with CCW holders. I know of a LEO, small in stature but when he strapped on that pistol had an attitude that he was 10 feet tall. Does that make him a bad cop? I don’t think so but it did give him more confidence he could control situations. So why take that ability away from law abiding citizens and why deny citizens the right to self defense where ever they go? Are they not entitled to have the means of self defense while having a coffee at Starbucks?

Frank

19th June 2010, 12:41

Look Patriotic, your LEO - CCW holder comparison is fundamentally specious.

...a LEO is obligated by policies and procedures set by his employing agency but then again a CCW holder is also obligated by the procedures and policies as the condition of his permit.... A CCW holder is not obliged to jump into a situation that does not personally involve him.

....self defense doesn’t require that stringent of a training regimen. I realize the training requirement for CCW permits vary from state to state but responsibility for your actions basically doesn’t. Either the use of deadly force is justified or it is not; both LEOs and private citizens share that same responsibility... [1]How do you know how stringent a training regimen may be necessary to adequately defend yourself? You don't know what your problem is going to be, so you have no idea what you're going to need to be able to do to solve it.

[2] Yes, both the CCW holder and the LEO are legally responsible for their actions and are subject to similar standards regarding the use of lethal force. However, the level of training an LEO has puts him in a far better position to meet that responsibility.

Even in States with an 8 hour class requirement for a CCW, the private citizen gets perhaps 4 hours (+/-) of instruction in the legal aspects of the use of force. An LEO gets five to 10 times that. In addition, an LEO is subject to continual oversight and supervision within an organized chain of command.

...With all of the background checks and screening done to become a LEO there will always be those who slip through the cracks ...So that means that less stringent background checks and screening would be a better idea?

...So why take that ability away from law abiding citizens and why deny citizens the right to self defense where ever they go? Are they not entitled to have the means of self defense while having a coffee at Starbucks?...That's not the point or the original question.

You claimed that the public shouldn't be concerned about private citizens carrying guns in public and asked...why aren’t people concerned about a LEO carrying a loaded firearm? Is it because they assume the LEO has been trained in the use and safety of the firearm, that the LEO’s background has been checked for any criminal background or possibly because the job of a LEO is to “protect and defend”? I guess you could say those are the same requirements a citizen must have to qualify for a concealed carry permit. Maybe we don’t stress enough what it takes to have a CCW permit... I pointed out that the comparison was ridiculous and that the role, training and screening of a private citizen CCW holder was in no way comparable to that of an LEO. Indeed, someone could reasonably conclude that given the LEO's job, his level of training, the screening process and background check he goes through and his level of supervision, it is reasonable for him to carry a gun.

The problem is that if you invite and press the comparison someone could also conclude that given the private citizen CCW holder's different role, his significantly lesser level of required training, his significantly less stringent screening and his lack of regular supervision, the private citizen is not really qualified to walk around in public with a loaded gun.

Aguila Blanca

19th June 2010, 15:06

A CCW holder is not obliged to jump into a situation that does not personally involve him.
In fact, a CCW holder is not obliged to use his/her firearm even in a situation that DOES personally involve him/her. The fact that he/she has a CCW and is legally allowed to carry a firearm means he/she has a choice available in such a situation, but there is no requirement to use the firearm under any circumstances. If I am accosted by a mugger while carrying, it is my option to use the firearm, use my hands and/or feet (offensively or defensively), use pepper spray, beg and whine, or just turn tail and run.

Patriotic

19th June 2010, 20:36

Frank, maybe I am missing your point. Are you saying that only LEOs are qualified to carry a firearm? Granted requirements to become a LEO today are more stringent and their firearm training exceeds that of the CCW holder but there was a time in our country when open carry was the rule rather than the exception. Hollywood portrays that period as being lawless with “shootouts” every day but that was not the case. People were held responsible for their actions and hanged for the unlawful use of deadly force. I think the reason for carrying a firearm back then was the same as now, for self defense. LEOs were far and few in between to protect the citizen as they are today. Remember the SC has ruled that you do not have a right to police protection; that the police are not obligated to provide protection.

I think you will agree that with all of that extensive training a LEO receives only a part of that deals with when and how he uses his firearm. Lets face it, the private citizen doesn’t need to know combat tactics or procedures for a traffic stop. He does need to know if it is a deadly threat and the only means to stop the threat is the use of deadly force. BTW there is a good link on LEO firearms training here:

http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/Handgun_Qualification_Trap.htm

Patriotic

19th June 2010, 21:11

Frank

19th June 2010, 21:22

...Frank, maybe I am missing your point. Are you saying that only LEOs are qualified to carry a firearm?... I am not. I am explaining why the statement you made in post 95 ...the LEO has been trained in the use and safety of the firearm, that the LEO’s background has been checked for any criminal background or possibly because the job of a LEO is to “protect and defend”? I guess you could say those are the same requirements a citizen must have to qualify for a concealed carry permit. Maybe we don’t stress enough what it takes to have a CCW permit...is wrong. You have attempted to equate LEO responsibility, training and screening to that of a private citizen with a CCW. And I have pointed out that such comparison is wildly off base.

Frank

19th June 2010, 21:32

We may have strayed from the original topic a bit but I think AB’s posting #4 seems to nail the subject. Can an organization such as the Brady Campaign or a business such as Starbucks legally discriminate against a person for having a means of self defense?...The simple answer is yes, a private business under current law absolutely may.

[1] The Second Amendment is irrelevant. The Constitution regulates the conduct of government, not private parties.

[2] As AB pointed out, there are a number of federal and state statutes that specifically prohibit discrimination by a business on certain grounds, such as race, religion, disability, etc. But carrying a gun is not a prohibited basis.

[3] Because the Constitution does not regulate the conduct of private parties, these statutes were necessary to prohibit discrimination on those specified bases.

[4] In fact the CCW laws of many States expressly allow businesses to post "no guns."

Patriotic

20th June 2010, 13:50

Frank, I think we will have to agree to disagree on this topic. There have been cases decided by the SC in which self defense has been ruled a “civil right”.

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/Self-Defense-Cases.htm

To deprive a person of their “civil rights” is a violation of the law. Remember, a person with a CCW license or permit has completed the requirements to be issued that permit and legally carry a firearm by the state. If a private business can refuse service or access to a person legally in possession of a firearm they can also do the same with LEOs who enter their establishment. If the policy of the business, in this case disallowing the carrying of a firearm in their establishment, isn’t carried out across the board to all customers then they are guilty of discrimination.

Dial 1911 for Help

20th June 2010, 14:21

Frank, maybe I am missing your point. Are you saying that only LEOs are qualified to carry a firearm?

No, the original question dealt with people who were comfortable with LEO's carrying openly in public but UNcomfortable with private citizens, their ultimate employers, doing so. Frank is explaining why an informed reasonable person might reach such a conclusion, without saying that he feels the same way himself.

I'm not sure I agree. Given the number of CCW licenses in circulation and the history of how that has gone, this hypothetical well-informed observer SHOULD conclude that the risk posed by armed members of the public is maybe neutral at worst, and possibly even a net GAIN in safety as the small but real added risk from the legal open or CCW carrier is more than offset by a crime deterrent effect.

Now, I DO think that Frank is perfectly correct to say that we still have to be cognizant of the image we create for ourselves as gun owners as these people, for whatever reason, are still allowed to vote and hold office.

Frank

20th June 2010, 14:48

...To deprive a person of their “civil rights” is a violation of the law.... Really? Cite the legal authority for that proposition. It is, in fact, not the law.

The David Kopel article you link to is about the law of self defense and the standards for establishing whether a use or threat of force was justified self defense.

...If the policy of the business, in this case disallowing the carrying of a firearm in their establishment, isn’t carried out across the board to all customers then they are guilty of discrimination....Discrimination is not illegal. You do it all the time. Every time you decide to shop in this store rather than that, you have discriminated. Every time you decide to buy this rather than that, you have discriminated.

Businesses discriminate all the time too, and legally. Apple stores discriminate against people who want to buy a PC by only selling Apple computers. Many restaurant discriminate against Orthodox Jews or Muslims by not strictly following the dietary laws of those religions. Many restaurants also discriminate against persons not wearing shirts and/or shoes by not admitting them. Tiffany discriminates against poor people in the prices they charge. Businesses also discriminate whenever they hire one person instead of another who has applied for the job.

Discrimination is merely choosing one thing over another or rejecting a possible choice. Discrimination is the very essence of freedom and private property. It is the right to choose. It is the right to exclude. It is the right to decide how you want to use your property.

Discrimination is perfectly legal, unless some law makes it illegal. There are laws that make discrimination illegal on various, specifically identified and defined bases, illegal -- at least if you're a business open to the public or an employer or in some other specified category.

So it is illegal for you to refuse admittance to your business, if open to the public, to a Black person. Why? It's not because doing so is discriminatory. It's because there are one or more statutes that specifically prohibit discrimination by a business open to the public on the basis of race.

But discrimination because someone is wearing a gun is nowhere specifically prohibited. So there is no law to prevent a business from barring entry to a person because he (or she) is wearing a gun.

Many businesses in fact do decline entry to persons wearing guns, or post that guns are prohibited. Some times political or social pressure has forced a reversal of such policies. But can you cite a single case in which such discrimination has been successfully challenged in court?

Dial 1911 for Help

20th June 2010, 15:03

Can an organization such as the Brady Campaign or a business such as Starbucks legally discriminate against a person for having a means of self defense?Not sure how the Brady Campaign would discriminate against a gun-owner since we don't come into contact with them on a daily basis. The only way I can imagine would be by refusing them membership so that is probably a moot issue anyway. I think your point is about them leaning on others, like Starbucks, to discriminate against us anyway. As far as Starbucks or other public venue, that gets a little more tricky. My answer would be a qualified "Yes", and I'll get to the qualifications later. The Constitution as written, and common sense, guarantee us freedom of association, meaning we have a right to associate, and not associate, with whomever we please, in our business or pleasure. This is how bigoted business owners (or owners fearful of the reaction of their prejudiced customer base) in the old days could post "Negroes not served" signs and so on. This was viewed as wrong, not just in a moral sense, but rather a legal one, and a new class of entity was imagined into existence, the "public accommodation". So the law now is that if you're running a business open to the "public", you must accept all comers without discrimination, at least insofar as the characteristic about which you're discriminating has made their list of bad things to discriminate about (race, gender, sometimes sexual orientation, and so on). For the moment, gun ownership, gun possession, or open carry are not on any of these lists maintained by the various government bodies. So they are WITHIN their legal rights to say you may not enter their store and buy coffee from them until open carriers are added to those lists (an unlikely prospect).

Now, my viewpoint is a little convoluted, both more stringent and more lenient than what's settled law for the moment. I do think they should be able to tell you they don't want to sell you coffee if you're carrying, but then I think they should be able to refuse to sell you coffee if you're wearing a red shirt, or if you have blue eyes, or if you're from New Jersey, or if your grandma was Latvian, so unlike many who support these laws I'm not being inconsistent. Those would be stupid distinctions, but stupidity usually isn't (and shouldn't be) against the law. We can't outlaw discrimination without outlawing freedom of association, which was never repealed, just ignored. So let businesses make the decision to discriminate on any characteristic they want and unless they're really really good in some other way to compensate, the market will put them at a disadvantage relative to businesses who DON'T arbitrarily narrow their customer base. Discrimination by individual business can serve a useful function in one way. Let's say we continue to legally allow discrimination on the basis of gun possession (but also on the LACK thereof, don't forget). NannyState coffee, due to the hoplophobic character of it's management, as well as their concern for the opinions of their similarly anti-gun customer base, bans firearms. Open carriers, inconvenienced and angry, stop going there. Across the street, one of them (a particularly devoted coffee drinker) opens Gunpowder Coffee and Scones. He, also allowed to discriminate, allows only open carriers or those comfortable with open or CCW in HIS shop. No antis allowed. So now everyone has a coffee shop where they can meet with convivial company and not have to worry about confrontation with people they don't like, or even being forced to feel uncomfortable in their presence.

So in that sense, I'm more tolerant than the norm of discrimination by PRIVATE businesses. However, the left, the political sector most heavily populated with those who would feel uncomfortable by seeing a guy with a gun on his hip when they went for their morning coffee, is the one who most vociferously supports the absurdly Pharisaical enforcement, and often the expansion, of these laws, so long as it's one of THEIR favorite oxen being gored. So as a practical matter, even though I don't agree with those laws, I'd have no problem with their vigorous enforcement against liberals and their businesses, who support them in the first place.

So (here's the qualification I promised earlier) I've said that if I were king of the world, there would be no laws against discrimination in "public accommodations". BUT, I'd also have no problem with allowing wrongful death lawsuits against any establishment who makes a rule more restrictive than local ordinance, and people are the victims of a crime that might have been prevented had the business allowed open carry.

Frank

20th June 2010, 15:11

...Given the number of CCW licenses in circulation and the history of how that has gone, this hypothetical well-informed observer SHOULD conclude that the risk posed by armed members of the public is maybe neutral at worst,..I tend to agree, to a point. The problem is that "should" doesn't count. Folks do and believe all kinds of things for bad, or the wrong, reasons, no matter what they "should" think.

But I do think that we can point to the excellent safety record for persons with CCWs and the statistics that show CCW holders to be extremely law abiding as a group.

But the argument that CCW holders are screened and trained "just like cops" doesn't help; because, in fact, the screening and training required of private citizens to qualify for CCWs in nothing at all like the screening and training required of LEOs.

Dial 1911 for Help

20th June 2010, 15:18

True, but we're both arguing "should". You're saying that Patriotic is wrong when he argues that those fearful of open carriers ought to base their views on a perception you're arguing is unfounded (relative training levels). You're saying they SHOULD NOT. I argued the same thing about a different but also relevant datum (history of CCW).

Regardless, like I said, they let these people vote so we have to take their views into account, so we're in agreement on that.

Frank

20th June 2010, 22:28

...You're saying that Patriotic is wrong when he argues that those fearful of open carriers ought to base their views on a perception you're arguing is unfounded (relative training levels). You're saying they SHOULD NOT....Sigh!

This is, I think, an important concept, so forgive me for appearing to belabor the point. I am not, however, saying that people should not accept Patriotic's comparable screening and training argument. I'm saying that we should not be making it because we can't adequately support it. So even if some people might accept it, thoughtful and analytical people will not.

Of course, sometimes people buy weak arguments. It happens a lot. But that's not the point. If we make arguments that we can't support or that can not stand up to the scrutiny of our opposition, it hurts us. It damages our credibility. Our contentions will be debunked. Patriotic's comparable screening and training argument is highly vulnerable to effective attack and challenge (as I've demonstrated).

In boxing it's called, "leading with your chin." It's not a good thing.

Aguila Blanca

21st June 2010, 08:38

WOW!

Following Patriotic's link to Kopel's article, I found this tidbit:

At common law, it was well-settled that if a person was attacked by a peace officer, and the person did not know that the attacker was a peace officer acting with a proper warrant, the person could resist the attack. [FN90] If necessary, deadly force was permitted. [FN91] Whether, in the particular facts of the case, Starr thought that he was being lawfully arrested, or thought that he was being criminally attacked was, of course, a question for a jury to resolve. [FN92]

At trial, Judge Parker instructed the jury that since Starr was a bond- jumper, he could not claim self-defense. [FN93] Chief Justice Melville Fuller, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, disagreed:

The motive of the accused in being where he was had nothing to do with the question of his right of self-defense in itself; and the unlawfulness of his previous conduct formed, in itself, no element in the solution of that question, but was to be considered *303 only in so far as it threw light on his belief that his arrest was sought by the officer. [FN94]

The Court concluded by pointing out the importance of the trial judge not favoring one side or another in jury instructions. [FN95] Following a new trial, Starr was convicted and sentenced to fifteen years. [FN96]
Today, violence in effecting arrests is common. This trend is in part the result of militarized police-units effecting nighttime "dynamic entries" (violent break-ins) to serve drug warrants, as well as similarly militarized street-crime units. [FN97] The Starr case reminds us that even scurrilous characters retain their right to use deadly force in self-defense against attackers who do not properly announce themselves as law enforcement officers.
I have been saying this for several years. If someone is bashing in the doors at 3:30 in the morning, even if they are yelling "POLICE!" how does one KNOW they are police if they haven't showed the warrant? This precedent just (to me) proves that "no knock," dynamic entry warrants simply should not be allowed.

Aguila Blanca

21st June 2010, 09:00

Back to civil rights:

Please note that the premise I proposed is hypothetical. The right to self-defense and the RKBA are fundamental human rights, the latter (supposedly) guaranteed by the Constitution, the former implied in the latter. But ensuring that I have a right to bear arms does not, in and of itself, prevent private property owners from discriminating against me if they disapprove of such actions.

As Frank has noted, discrimination is illegal only when it involves discrimination based on a few special characteristics that have been enshrined in civil rights law: race, color, religion, gender. With the passage under Bush I we also got the ADA, which made it not only unlawful to discriminate against those with various disabilities, it also established that failure to make a reasonable effort to accommodate disabilities was deemed to be discrimination.

So my suggestion was simply that, IF (as expected) the SCOTUS rules that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states, we should then proceed to claim that the RKBA is a "civil right" and that failure to allow us to practice that right in private but quasi-public venues (such as malls, restaurants, etc.) is discrimination on the basis of not allowing us to practice a civil right. But I understood when I wrote that that what I was proposing was a legal test; unfortunately, some readers apparently did not understand it as such. It isn't a slam dunk argument -- it would very much be (if you'll pardon the pun) a "trial balloon."

Dial 1911 for Help

21st June 2010, 13:57

This is, I think, an important concept, so forgive me for appearing to belabor the point. I am not, however, saying that people should not accept Patriotic's comparable screening and training argument. I'm saying that we should not be making it because we can't adequately support it. So even if some people might accept it, thoughtful and analytical people will not. Alright, I get the distinction. Sorry for being obtuse.

Dial 1911 for Help

21st June 2010, 13:59

I have been saying this for several years. If someone is bashing in the doors at 3:30 in the morning, even if they are yelling "POLICE!" how does one KNOW they are police if they haven't showed the warrant? This precedent just (to me) proves that "no knock," dynamic entry warrants simply should not be allowed.Exactly! It places the burden of guessing properly if they are police on the person who had no part in initiating the immediate situation, and in fact the owner of the property. Completely backwards.

Patriotic

21st June 2010, 18:19

But the argument that CCW holders are screened and trained "just like cops" doesn't help; because, in fact, the screening and training required of private citizens to qualify for CCWs in nothing at all like the screening and training required of LEOs.

I don’t think I said CCW holders received the same level of training as LEOs. If that is the impression that came forward I apologize. CCW holders have received a level of training sufficient in the eyes of the state to allow them to carry a firearm in the public domain. We have a segment of our population who for what ever reason takes exception to law abiding citizens carrying a firearm in public. Is it that they feel unsafe in that situation? Do they feel a CCW permit holder will just draw his gun and start shooting? Or possibly that a CCW permit holder will handle his firearm in an unsafe manner? Or is it just a political agenda being presented to disarm the civilian populous. I think we need to know their reasoning in order to address this. My point is that precautions have been taken by the state through background checks and training to ensure a person who receives a CCW permit is least likely to use his firearm in an unsafe or criminal manner. That should address the fear aspect of the opposition along with statistics to back it up. The political agenda angle is different and will require a favorable decision by the SC on incorporation and possibly a decision on “civil rights”.

The Civil Rights Act does not apply exclusively to minority groups. We saw this with Justice Sotomayor’s decision being overturned by the SC in the New Haven firefighter’s case. Please read this link to see where I am coming from on the issue of a “civil right”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_(disambiguation)

We know there are “civil rights” which encompasses “legal rights” and “human or natural rights”. The right to self defense is rooted in our Declaration of Independence which spells out a natural or God given right to “life”. The process of securing a CCW permit or license gives us the “legal right” to carry a firearm in public for self defense. Think of the basis behind it being a violation of civil rights to refuse to serve a black man in a restaurant. It is not because he is black, it is because he has a God given right derived by the statement “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” Now consider a CCW permit holder with a firearm strapped to his waist who has a legal right to carry the firearm for self defense and his natural or God given right to his life and protection of it; isn’t that the same violation of a civil right by refusing service or admittance to a person of color? The reasons may be different but the civil rights issues are not. As far as I know there has been no test or litigation on the issue.

Consider this; let’s say a restaurant owner posts a “no guns” sign and some deranged person comes in and starts shooting people (something like what happened in Killeen Texas). Do you think the owner of the restaurant would or should be liable for not allowing his cliental to have a means of self defense?

Dial 1911 for Help

21st June 2010, 21:06

Consider this; let’s say a restaurant owner posts a “no guns” sign and some deranged person comes in and starts shooting people (something like what happened in Killeen Texas). Do you think the owner of the restaurant would or should be liable for not allowing his cliental to have a means of self defense?Yes, or at least that it's sufficiently arguable to allow a lawsuit on that theory to proceed and let the jury decide.

Frank

21st June 2010, 22:51

I don’t think I said CCW holders received the same level of training as LEOs....I think you did. In any case, it seems to me to be rather late in the discussion to now try to clarify your original intent.

....CCW holders have received a level of training sufficient in the eyes of the state...In any case, the adequacy of the required training is, as I've pointed out, subject to debate. And many States have no training requirement. This remains a line of argument vulnerable to being discredited.

Now on to the civil rights issue.

Be it remembered that this current discussion began when, in post 103, you asked for an answer to Aguila Blanca's question from post 4. That question was, essentially, "Can ...a business such as Starbucks legally discriminate against a person for having a means of self defense?" And I answered, based on current law, "yes."

How do I know? Basically because it's my business to know. I am a lawyer, a member of the California Bar and have successfully practiced law for over 30 years. And since my practice was primarily business oriented, I really needed to know what businesses could do and could not do. If I did not know these things, and my clients got into trouble because of it, I'd have been out of work pretty quickly.

But Patriotic, you seem to believe that I'm wrong about what the law is. What are your qualifications for your opinion? You're clearly not a lawyer. So what educational or experiential background qualifies you opine as you do? Of course, you're free to hold and express an opinion even if you're not qualified or have no good basis for it; but your training, education and experience would provide guidance to us as to how seriously to take your opinion. Not all opinions are equal. My doctor's opinion about my health deserves a good deal more attention than that of my mechanic.

As Aguila Blanca wrote in post 7There's a pretty decent lawyer on this forum. I was hoping he might chime in on this discussion.I believe he was referring to me, and I'm sorry to have been so late entering the fray.

...The Civil Rights Act does not apply exclusively to minority groups. We saw this with Justice Sotomayor’s decision being overturned by the SC in the New Haven firefighter’s case... [1] If you intend to rely on this case for anything, you need to provide a link, or a proper citation or at least the correct name of the case, so that I can readily look it up. There's no reason I, or anyone else, should be expected to go searching for some case out of the 7th Circuit involving a firefighter and in which Sotomayor participated in an opinion when she sat on that court.

[2] If it indeed involved a firefighter, it's probably irrelevant to our discussions of the rights of a private business. A firefighter is an employee of a governmental entity.

...Please read this link to see where I am coming from on the issue of a “civil right”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_...(disambiguation)...I've read it. What does that have to do with anything we're talking about?

...The right to self defense is rooted in our Declaration of Independence which spells out a natural or God given right to “life”...No, the right of self defense is not rooted in the Declaration of Independence. It's rooted in the Common Law of England, upon which our legal system is based. And as significant a document the Declaration of Independence is, it is not law. It was an open letter to King George III telling him why we were tossing him and his minions out.

...The process of securing a CCW permit or license gives us the “legal right” to carry a firearm in public for self defense....Subject to all applicable state and federal laws. Under those laws, there are various places one may not lawfully carry his gun, even with his permit.

...Think of the basis behind it being a violation of civil rights to refuse to serve a black man in a restaurant. It is not because he is black, it is because he has a God given right derived by the statement “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”... But this discussion in not about the moral or ethical issues. It's about legal rights. It is illegal for a restaurant to refuse service to someone solely because of his race only because a specific statute (or several statutes) make it so. Prior to the enactment of those statutes, a restaurant could refuse service without legal liability, and many [to their shame] did. There are reasons why thus refusing service on the basis of race was a disgrace, but before the civil rights and public accommodation statutes were enacted, it was legal. (And notwithstanding all persons having been created equal, private clubs or similar closed organizations may still legally refuse admittance to persons because of race, or gender, or religions, etc. You must be Catholic to join the Knights of Columbus, and that restriction is entirely legal, even though non-Catholics may be equal.)

It is now legal for a private business to prohibit entry to persons lawfully carrying guns or to require that they leave if they are found to be armed. In some States, businesses wanting to do so must post signs meeting certain statutory requirements, but if the business does so, it may legally excluded people who are armed.

...Now consider a CCW permit holder with a firearm strapped to his waist who has a legal right to carry the firearm for self defense and his natural or God given right to his life and protection of it; isn’t that the same violation of a civil right by refusing service or admittance to a person of color?... No it is not, not legally. There's a law specifically prohibiting a business from discriminating on the basis of race. There is no such law prohibiting a business from discriminating on the basis of being armed.

...Now consider a CCW permit holder with a firearm strapped to his waist who has a legal right to carry the firearm for self defense and his natural or God given right to his life and protection of it; isn’t that the same violation of a civil right by refusing service or admittance to a person of color? The reasons may be different but the civil rights issues are not. As far as I know there has been no test or litigation on the issue....And your contention is further unsupportable without any court decision sustaining it.

...let’s say a restaurant owner posts a “no guns” sign and some deranged person comes in and starts shooting people ... Do you think the owner of the restaurant would or should be liable for not allowing his cliental to have a means of self defense?...Beats me. It will be up to the courts to work it out, if something like that actually ever happens. And the outcome would depend on the exact facts of the case.

Among other things, causation may be difficult to establish. If there was no one in the restaurant who left his gun at home or in the car because of the sign, the restaurant's policy would not have contributed to the injury. If the person who left his gun in the car did so because he was going to have wine with his meal, and local law prohibited drinking alcohol while carrying a gun (as it is in Arizona), the restaurant's policy would not have contributed to the injury. Did someone with a gun decide just then not to eat there because of the restaurant's policy? That would be tough for the plaintiff to prove.

And there may be other legal obstacle to recovery, depending on the exact law of the place where this happens.

Patriotic

22nd June 2010, 07:21

How do I know? Basically because it's my business to know. I am a lawyer, a member of the California Bar and have successfully practiced law for over 30 years. And since my practice was primarily business oriented, I really needed to know what businesses could do and could not do. If I did not know these things, and my clients got into trouble because of it, I'd have been out of work pretty quickly.

I never said you were wrong about the law and only provided my opinion on the topic. I mean we are discussing issues here and we are not in a court of law before a judge. I respect your opinion as I would hope you would do likewise and discuss the issues. I am sure you realize lawyers do not decide cases but juries do. People without legal training deciding the merits of the case. Right or wrong it is our system. When a decision is handed down it becomes case law and a reference for future cases. I respect the fact you have practiced law for 30 years, I don’t know if you are a trial lawyer and have litigated cases in court but I am sure if you did that you have also lost cases.

It is now legal for a private business to prohibit entry to persons lawfully carrying guns or to require that they leave if they are found to be armed. In some States, businesses wanting to do so must post signs meeting certain statutory requirements, but if the business does so, it may legally excluded people who are armed.

Referring back to one of my previous posts; does that or should that restriction also apply to LEOs? In my opinion, either all should be restricted or none. Again in my opinion, making exceptions opens the door to questioning the business’ policy.

Frank

22nd June 2010, 09:29

...I never said you were wrong about the law and only provided my opinion on the topic....But the question was about what the law is. It was, as you, yourself, put it in post 103, ...Can an organization such as the Brady Campaign or a business such as Starbucks legally discriminate against a person for having a means of self defense?...
So was your opinion on the topic about the way you think the law ought to be? If so, how was it responsive to the question as you, yourself, framed it?

...I am sure you realize lawyers do not decide cases but juries do. People without legal training deciding the merits of the case..... Actually, juries decide the facts, and only to the extent that the facts are in dispute. Judges decide the law.

...Referring back to one of my previous posts; does that or should that restriction also apply to LEOs? In my opinion, either all should be restricted or none. Again in my opinion, making exceptions opens the door to questioning the business’ policy.... Since no law prohibits a business from discriminating on the basis of carrying a gun, a business may also legally have different policies for LEO and private citizens. It may be discriminatory to do so, but discrimination is lawful unless otherwise prohibited.

Is your opinion that, "... either all should be restricted or none..." your opinion of what the law is? If so, you do have legal authority to support your opinion, or is it just your unsupported opinion pulled out of the air? On the other hand, if it's merely your opinion as to how the law should be changed, how is that responsive to the question?

Dial 1911 for Help

22nd June 2010, 12:36

Actually, juries decide the facts, and only to the extent that the facts are in dispute. Judges decide the law. Judges will tell you that but it's a long established practice (and even acknowledged by SCOTUS) that juries are to judge both the facts AND the law. SCOTUS simply ruled that citizens are at the top of the hierarchy and that thus their judicial employees have no responsibility to inform of their rights and duties in that regard. It's their job as citizens to know that.

Frank

22nd June 2010, 13:05

Judges will tell you that but it's a long established practice (and even acknowledged by SCOTUS) that juries are to judge both the facts AND the law.... So how about a citation to legal authority to support your claim?

Jury nullification is an interesting topic. Everyone knows that jurors may, in fact, choose to disregard the judge’s instructions on the law. However, the doctrine is officially recognized in only a few jurisdictions and in only a few situations. A judge would not instruct a jury that it could disregard the law, and it would be unacceptable, and perhaps even grounds for a contempt of court citation, for a lawyer to bring up the notion in front of a jury that it could ignore the judge’s instructions on the law.

Three states seem to have broad constitutional provisions authorizing the jury to determine the law in criminal cases. It would appear that even in those states the doctrine isn’t officially recognized in civil cases. It would be interesting to see how jury nullification has actually worked in those states. I wonder if there are jury instructions or if a defense lawyer has actually suggested in a criminal case to a jury that it could disregard the judge’s instructions, at least in recent times.

In a number of other states (including Connecticut), the constitutions provide that the jury shall be the judges of law and facts in trials of indictments or prosecutions for libel. The thing is that “indictment or prosecution” would refer only to a criminal charge. I don’t think I’ve heard of, at least in the 20th or 21st centuries, a criminal action for libel. In fact, I wonder if, at least since the end of the 19th century when portions of the Bill of Rights, including the 1st Amendment, began to be made applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment, a law criminalizing libel would survive a constitutional challenge.

In any case, it appears that in a majority of states with that provision relating to libel in their constitution, the constitution also states that the jury shall be the judge of the law and facts “under the direction of the court.”

Be that as it may, it’s still true that no one may intrude into the deliberations of a jury. If a jury is agreed that the law, as instructed by the judge, should not be applied for whatever reason, and returns a verdict obviously completely at odds with the judge’s instructions, nothing will happen to the jurors.

What happens with the verdict depends. If it’s a criminal case and the verdict is acquittal, that’s the end of it; and the defendant goes free. If it’s a criminal matter and the jury convicts, the judge could set aside the verdict if clearly erroneous; or the conviction could be appealed. In a civil case, a verdict clearly not supported by the law as instructed by the judge could be set aside by the judge or appealed.

Consider also that jury nullification can be a two edged sword. Some may look on it as a check on government by permitting a jury to acquit someone who might be considered a victim of government excess. But it could also lead to the conviction on a criminal charge of someone who, in the final analysis, may be guilty only of being unpopular. Of course, in the later case, the judge may still act to counter the injustice.

Frank

22nd June 2010, 14:01

Another factor, which most laypersons don't fully appreciate, is the many rulings on matters of law made before and during a trial that will affect the course and conduct of a trial. Motions by the parties, and the rulings of the judge on those motions, will shape the issues that will be the subject matter of the trial and what will be permitted to be introduced into evidence.

And the instructions of law the judge will give the jury will have been hashed out beforehand among the lawyers and the judge. Those instructions will shape the nature and scope of the lawyers' closing arguments to the jury. The lawyers will not be permitted to argue theories outside the scope of the judge's instructions to the jury of the law.

Dial 1911 for Help

22nd June 2010, 15:44

So how about a citation to legal authority to support your claim? I knew you'd want one! I'll track it down and post a link.

Patriotic

22nd June 2010, 19:23

Is your opinion that, "... either all should be restricted or none..." your opinion of what the law is? If so, you do have legal authority to support your opinion, or is it just your unsupported opinion pulled out of the air? On the other hand, if it's merely your opinion as to how the law should be changed, how is that responsive to the question?

We seem to come full circle here. You argument that the Civil Rights Act (law) doesn’t explicitly grant protection for those legally allowed to carry a firearm and so is irrelevant yet if a sign on a business establishment doesn’t explicitly allow for LEOs to carry a firearm into the establishment it is OK. I am not a lawyer and will never be a judge but chances are very good I will serve on a jury in which case my “out of thin air” opinions may just have a bearing on the outcome of the trial. And yes, I am very much aware of a jury’s power of nullification. I do consider that power sacred and not to be used lightly but should I ever sit on a jury where a law abiding citizen, possessing a CCW permit is facing a criminal charge of carrying a firearm into an establishment that has a sign posted “No Guns”, I will vote Not Guilty. You see Frank; there is no moral or legal justification for such a law just as there was no moral or legal justification for Jim Crow laws which were overturned by the SC. Hopefully the SC will rule favorably and incorporate the 2A into the states which will make this discussion moot.

Frank

22nd June 2010, 19:47

...And yes, I am very much aware of a jury’s power of nullification. I do consider that power sacred and not to be used lightly but should I ever sit on a jury where a law abiding citizen, possessing a CCW permit is facing a criminal charge of carrying a firearm into an establishment that has a sign posted “No Guns”, I will vote Not Guilty. You see Frank; there is no moral or legal justification for such a law just as there was no moral or legal justification for Jim Crow laws which were overturned by the SC.... It's interesting that you bring up both jury nullification and the Jim Crow laws. I suspect that during some of the "bad old days" of the post Reconstruction South and some of the early days of the Civil Rights Movement, juries regularly practiced nullification to let off various murders of Blacks, participants in lynch mobs and the like. What shinning examples of the power of the jury.

As for moral or legal justification for laws permitting businesses to bar guns, you seem to take private property pretty lightly. And as I've mentioned, laws in many States specifically recognize in statute a business' right to bar guns.

...Hopefully the SC will rule favorably and incorporate the 2A into the states which will make this discussion moot...Incorporation of the 2nd Amendment making it applicable to the States through the 14th Amendment will be a very good thing, but it won't make this discussion moot. Private businesses will still be able to bar guns unless and until States enact laws prohibiting them from doing so.

Aguila Blanca

22nd June 2010, 20:11

Here ya go, Frank: State of Georgia vs. Brailsford, 1794, one of the few cases actually tried before the Supreme Court.

in the February term of 1794, the Supreme Court conducted a jury trial in the case of the State of Georgia vs. Brailsford1. The instructions to the jury in the first jury trial before the Supreme Court of the United States illustrate the true power of the jury. Chief Justice John Jay said: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision." (emphasis added) "...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0003_0001_ZO.html

The quotation is from the first page, which contains Chief Justice Jay's charge to the jury.

Other references:

As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an "unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge

Or as this same truth was stated in a earlier decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Maryland: "We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision."

From Wikipedia:
In 1895 in Sparf v. United States, the Court said that courts need not inform jurors of their de facto right of juror nullification although jurors' inherent right to judge the law remains unchallenged.

Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895)

Full cite here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=156&page=51 The decision contains, in fact, an excellent discussion of the theories supporting and denigrating "jury nullification."

Aguila Blanca

22nd June 2010, 20:27

As for moral or legal justification for laws permitting businesses to bar guns, you seem to take private property pretty lightly. And as I've mentioned, laws in many States specifically recognize in statute a business' right to bar guns.
It seems to me that you are being more than a little unfair to Frank. You are conflating moral and legal justification for laws, but they are not inseparable, nor even the same. A law is a law; it says what it says, and if you do what the law says not to do, that's "illegal." Period. Frank is an attorney. He deals in law, not in morality. This discussion was about what the law says.

Then you dragged in morality. But morality is much more personal and amorphous than legality. It matters not whether you nor I nor Frank nor anyone agrees with a law -- if we do what the law says not to do, we commit an illegal act. Is the act also immoral? Well, that's a much fuzzier question. You might think something is moral or ethical, which I might consider the exact same thing immoral or unethical. So it is entirely unfair and unreasonable to criticize Frank's explanation of the legal basis on moral grounds.

Patriotic

22nd June 2010, 21:24

It's interesting that you bring up both jury nullification and the Jim Crow laws. I suspect that during some of the "bad old days" of the post Reconstruction South and some of the early days of the Civil Rights Movement, juries regularly practiced nullification to let off various murders of Blacks, participants in lynch mobs and the like. What shinning examples of the power of the jury.

That is not the reason I brought up Jim Crow Laws. There was no moral or legal justification for the Jim Crow laws yet justices in the south instructed their juries to rule on the letter of the law. It took an action of Congress to overturn these laws and rightfully restore rights to all people regardless of their minority group status.

As for moral or legal justification for laws permitting businesses to bar guns, you seem to take private property pretty lightly. And as I've mentioned, laws in many States specifically recognize in statute a business' right to bar guns.

Regarding private property, I consider your home or vehicle, barn, yard etc. as private property because you exclusively use it; no one cares who you invite onto your private property. When you open a business to the public, even though you own the business, you are subject to a myriad of regulations and laws. Where you can restrict lets say a person of color from entering your home you cannot do so if you run a business that is open to the public.

My point is regarding citizens legally authorized to carry a firearm and possessing a CCW permit is what grounds is there for restricting their access to a place open to the public? Are they a risk? Do statistics point out they are a risk or did someone (to use your term) just pull that out of thin air? I think, if the 2A is incorporated into the states, the “infringement” clause in the 2A will make it very difficult for a private business to continue the “no guns” policy. Then again that is my opinion.

Patriotic

22nd June 2010, 21:53

It seems to me that you are being more than a little unfair to Frank. You are conflating moral and legal justification for laws, but they are not inseparable, nor even the same. A law is a law; it says what it says, and if you do what the law says not to do, that's "illegal." Period. Frank is an attorney. He deals in law, not in morality. This discussion was about what the law says.

Then you dragged in morality. But morality is much more personal and amorphous than legality. It matters not whether you nor I nor Frank nor anyone agrees with a law -- if we do what the law says not to do, we commit an illegal act. Is the act also immoral? Well, that's a much fuzzier question. You might think something is moral or ethical, which I might consider the exact same thing immoral or unethical. So it is entirely unfair and unreasonable to criticize Frank's explanation of the legal basis on moral grounds.

AB, wasn’t that the point of the Jim Crow Laws? By the letter of the law violation was a crime. When the moral aspects of those laws were considered they were overturned and declared unconstitutional. I have a high regard for Frank and his background, I feel everything he says is relevant to the discussion but there is a differing of opinion on the subject which since this is a discussion forum there is no right or wrong side. Believe me, I have no ax to grind with Frank; the objections I have are with the current law. I appreciate Frank’s input, he is an expert on the law, weather he agrees with it or not he states the law as it is. I am sure if we were discussing Jim Crow laws during the time period between 1876 and 1965, Frank would have the same opinion that the law was the law. I don’t fault him for that.

Frank

22nd June 2010, 22:30

Aguila Blanca,

Interesting cases, albeit a couple are quite old. But they are also a little beside the point. The language merely reflects recognition of the inescapable fact that in a criminal case, a jury's acquittal, even if contrary to the law and to the evidence, is beyond review. That flows, of course, from the prohibition of double jeopardy.

But none of these cases would support instructing a jury that it is free to disregard the law, nor would they support a lawyer urging the jury in closing argument to disregard the law as instructed by the judge. If a jury is going to ignore the law, that's something they will need to figure out for themselves.

And of course, jury nullification is not, itself, an accepted legal doctrine. It is merely the acknowledged consequence of the fact that a jury verdict of acquittal in a criminal case is not appealable by the prosecution.

In contrast, a jury verdict of conviction in a criminal case, and any jury verdict in a civil case, is appealable. So in all cases other than a verdict of acquittal in a criminal case, a remedy exists when the jury returns a verdict in conflict with the law and/or the facts.

...That is not the reason I brought up Jim Crow Laws. There was no moral or legal justification for the Jim Crow laws yet justices in the south instructed their juries to rule on the letter of the law....You miss the point. During a period of great national disgrace, it was apparently not uncommon in some parts of our country for juries to ignore the law and the facts, and acquit persons charged with violent crimes, simply because those crimes were committed against Blacks. That was jury nullification, and it did not in those cases further justice. It subverted justice. So the application of jury nullification has a somewhat tarnished history.

...Regarding private property, I consider your home or vehicle, barn, yard etc. as private property because you exclusively use it; no one cares who you invite onto your private property. When you open a business to the public, even though you own the business, you are subject to a myriad of regulations and laws.... Nonetheless the business is private property. The various requirements, regulations and rules to which a business open to the public is subject arose through the political process in which interested parties can participate and reflect a considered determination by a legislative body or authorized administrative agency that as a matter of public policy that the public interest served by the requirement, regulation or rule was sufficient to justify impairment of the property rights of the business.

...My point is regarding citizens legally authorized to carry a firearm and possessing a CCW permit is what grounds is there for restricting their access to a place open to the public?..And so you should direct your opinions in that regard to the appropriate legislative body. It will be up to them, if it is determined that there is enough support, to enact laws prohibiting or limiting the right of a business to deny entry to lawfully armed customers. That is the process we follow in this country.

Note that in fact such efforts have had some effect. Several States, including Utah, Oklahoma, Florida and perhaps a couple of others, have enacted laws generally prohibiting an employer from terminating someone's employment because he has a lawfully owned gun locked in his car on premises used by the employer for employee parking. Absent such laws, an employer could fire someone, as demonstrated by the Utah Supreme Court finding in favor of an employer in such a case (before the law in Utah was changed).

So by all means, pursue your political remedies.

...if the 2A is incorporated into the states, the “infringement” clause in the 2A will make it very difficult for a private business to continue the “no guns” policy...Why? The Constitution regulates government. It doesn't regulate the conduct of private parties. That's of course why the 14th Amendment was insufficient, by itself, to prevent various types of discrimination by private parties; and it was necessary to enact a variety of statutes to accomplish that.

...Frank would have the same opinion that the law was the law. I don’t fault him for that...And one aspect of that is that understanding clearly, in the real world, what the law is, and how the system works, is the first step to deciding if, and how, to go about changing it.

Aguila Blanca

22nd June 2010, 22:49

But none of these cases would support instructing a jury that it is free to disregard the law, nor would they support a lawyer urging the jury in closing argument to disregard the law as instructed by the judge. If a jury is going to ignore the law, that's something they will need to figure out for themselves.
I have to disagree with you there, Counselor. A couple of them very specifically and explicitly DO say that the jury has a right to find contrary to the law. I grant, they do not support allowing an attorney to suggest to a jury that they do so, but the meaning of the cases taken together is clearly that the judge's "instructions" on the law are to be regarded as clarifications, and NOT as imperatives. The jury is not supposed to "ignore" the law, but to consider the law. And if, after due and proper consideration of the law, the jury finds that the law is unfair or excessively harsh or inflexible, the jury then has the right (some would argue the duty) to return a verdict contrary to the letter of the law.

It's in there -- more than twice.

Frank

23rd June 2010, 00:40

...A couple of them very specifically and explicitly DO say that the jury has a right to find contrary to the law....And I disgaree, AB.

[1] Note in the two modern case you quote the court refers to the power, not the right, of the jury.
'
In Dougherty, as you've quoted it, the court says, "...the jury has an unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge..." (emphasis added)

In Moylan, as you've quoted it, the court says, "...We recognize, ... the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge..."(emphasis added)

And even in its reference to Sparf , as you've quoted, Wikipedia refers to the "de facto right of juror nullification" not a de jure right. That is clearly an acknowledgment the power of jury nullification is a matter of fact, and not of law.

[2] This de facto power is simply the natural consequence, as alluded to in Moylan, of the facts that (1) a jury verdict of acquittal in a criminal case in non-reviewable; and (2) the deliberations of the jury are not subject to examination by the court. As a result, if a jury acquits in a criminal case, whatever its basis and even if the verdict of acquittal is contrary to law and/or the facts, there is nothing that can be done; and the verdict must stand.

[3] And since this power may not be argued by counsel and since the jury will not be instructed by the judge that they have this power, it is essentially outside the scope of the legal process and exists as an artifact of the non-reviewability of a verdict of acquittal in a criminal case. The judge will not instruct in this, nor will the lawyers urge the jury to exercise this de facto power, but rather it's something the jury will need to decide to do on its own initiative. And it may do so only because its deliberations are not subject to scrutiny by the court.

[4] In addition, any power a jury effectively has to ignore the law (or the facts) is indeed limited to circumstances in which a jury returns a verdict of acquittal in a criminal case. It is only the verdict of acquittal in a criminal case that is final and non-reviewable. And it is only that finality and non-reviewability of such verdict that gives rise to the de facto power of jury nullification.

A verdict of guilty in a criminal case is reviewable. And a jury verdict of guilty which is contrary to the law, as instructed by the judge, or the facts, may be discarded and a new trial ordered. Thus a jury has no "right" to ignore the law (or facts) if they decide to convict.

Nor does a jury have any effective power to find contrary to law in a civil case. Any verdict in a civil case is subject to review and may be discarded if not supported by the law and/or the facts. Indeed a judge in a civil case may completely toss out a jury verdict widely at variance with the law and/or facts and issue a judgment contrary to the verdict.

[5] So the so called "right" of jury nullification is merely the de facto consequence of the non-reviewability of a verdict of acquittal in a criminal case.

..the meaning of the cases taken together is clearly that the judge's "instructions" on the law are to be regarded as clarifications, and NOT as imperatives...But the cases really don't say that. Indeed no trial judge would ever characterize his instructions as mere clarifications. Those instructions are given as imperatives. The trial judge will instruct the jury in clear and unambiguous terms that if they find that fact to be true, they will find X. As already noted, if they choose not to follow those instructions and acquit the criminal defendant, nothing will be able to be done about it. But the jury will need to figure that out for themselves.

Patriotic

23rd June 2010, 07:10

You miss the point. During a period of great national disgrace, it was apparently not uncommon in some parts of our country for juries to ignore the law and the facts, and acquit persons charged with violent crimes, simply because those crimes were committed against Blacks. That was jury nullification, and it did not in those cases further justice. It subverted justice. So the application of jury nullification has a somewhat tarnished history.

I wouldn’t say it was jury nullification if the jury ruled on the substance of the Jim Crow laws. I don’t doubt that at that time juries considered a black defendant guilty before the trial even took place and a white defendant innocent of any crimes committed against a black. That was the tarnished history of our legal system at the time. Again, morality of the law lead to the overturning of the Jim Crow laws.

Frank

23rd June 2010, 09:10

I wouldn’t say it was jury nullification if the jury ruled on the substance of the Jim Crow laws....Again you miss the point. My comments had nothing to do with trials of Blacks for violating the Jim Crow laws. It has to do with Whites routinely being acquitted when tried for ordinary crimes of violence against Blacks, and even when under the law and facts they were guilty. And that's jury nullification in action.

Dial 1911 for Help

23rd June 2010, 16:27

Sheesh, you all are too quick for me! Just about the time I can frame in my mind what I want to say about someones post, I go back and find that one is about 20 posts back up the thread, and there's five new ones I'd like to respond to!

Patriotic

23rd June 2010, 21:36

It has to do with Whites routinely being acquitted when tried for ordinary crimes of violence against Blacks, and even when under the law and facts they were guilty. And that's jury nullification in action.

Maybe you could cite some specific cases that we could review.

Frank

23rd June 2010, 22:45

Maybe you could cite some specific cases that we could review.Nah, if you don't want to believe it happened, that's alright with me.

Of course this little tidbit from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_history#Racial_terrorism) is interesting:

...The Jim Crow era accompanied the most cruel wave of "racial" suppression that America has yet experienced. Between 1890 and 1940, millions of African Americans were disfranchised, killed, and brutalized. According to newspaper records kept at the Tuskegee Institute, about 5,000 men, women, and children were murdered outright, tortured to death in documented extrajudicial public rituals of mob violence —human sacrifices called "lynchings." The journalist Ida B. Wells estimated that lynchings not reported by the newspapers, plus similar executions under the veneer of "due process", may have amounted to about 20,000 killings.

Of the tens of thousands of lynchers and onlookers during this period, it is reported that fewer than 50 whites were ever indicted for their crimes, and only four sentenced. Because blacks were disfranchised, they could not sit on juries or have any part in the political process, including local offices. Meanwhile, the lynchings were a weapon of white mob terror with millions of Afro-Americans living in a constant state of anxiety and fear....

Or you might be interested in this tale of the murder of a Black teenager and the acquittal of his accused, White murders: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till. Note that his accused murderers actually confessed to the murder after the jury had acquitted them. Here's a snippet:

...Mrs. Bradley traveled to Mississippi to testify at the trial, staying in the home of Dr. T.R.M. Howard in the all-black town of Mound Bayou. Others staying in Howard's home were black reporters, such as Cloyte Murdock of Ebony magazine, key witnesses, and Congressman Charles Diggs of Michigan, later the first chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus. Howard was a major civil rights leader and fraternal organization official in Mississippi, the head of the Regional Council of Negro Leadership (RCNL), and one of the wealthiest blacks in the state.

The day before the trial, Frank Young, a black farm worker, came to Howard's home, stating that he had information indicating that Milam and Bryant had help in their crime. Young's allegations sparked an investigation that led to unprecedented cooperation between local law enforcement, the NAACP, the RCNL, black journalists, and local reporters. The trial began on September 19, 1955, 22 days after the murder. Moses "Mose" Wright, Emmett's great-uncle, was one of the main witnesses called up to testify by lead prosecutor Gerald Chatham. Pointing to one of the suspected killers, he identified the man who had killed his nephew.

Another key witness for the prosecution was Willie Reed, an 18-year-old high school student who lived on a plantation near Drew, Mississippi in Sunflower County. The prosecution had located him, thanks to the investigation sparked by Young's information. Reed testified that he had seen a pickup truck outside an equipment shed, on a plantation near Drew managed by Leslie Milam, a brother of J.W. Milam and Roy Bryant. He said that four whites, including J.W. Milam, were in the cab and three blacks were in the back, one of them Till. When the truck pulled into the shed, he heard human cries that sounded like a beating was under way. He did not identify the other blacks on the truck.

On September 23 the all-male, all-white jury acquitted both defendants. Deliberations took merely 67 minutes; one juror said, "If we hadn't stopped to drink pop, it wouldn't have taken us too long." The hasty acquittal outraged people throughout the United States and Europe and energized the nascent Civil Rights Movement....

...The jury is not supposed to "ignore" the law, but to consider the law. And if, after due and proper consideration of the law, the jury finds that the law is unfair or excessively harsh or inflexible, the jury then has the right (some would argue the duty) to return a verdict contrary to the letter of the law...The thing is, it's not always going to work that way, obviously. Sometimes it may happen that a thoughtful jury will thoroughly consider the law as instructed by the judge, consider all the evidence and conclude that application of the law, in light of what they have decided to have been the facts of the case, would be harsh and unjust. So that particular jury decides that the right thing would be to acquit the defendant although doing so is strictly speaking contrary to the law as they were instructed in it.

But then again, sometimes jury nullification can be simply a matter of a jury of White men deciding that there ain't no way they're going to convict another White man of murdering a Black man, no matter what the law or the evidence is.

Again, it's a fact that a jury has the power to acquit, in disregard of the law and the facts, a defendant in a criminal case because its verdict of acquittal is non-reviewable. And no one except the members of the jury has any control over how or why they choose to do so.

Patriotic

24th June 2010, 07:18

Frank

24th June 2010, 10:44

You see Frank, disfranchisement of blacks was supported in the law at that time there was no right to suffrage at the time for blacks (they could not vote or serve on juries). You bring in a moral judgment which by the way I agree with. You have in past posts chastised me for bringing in the moral question, quoting “the law is the law”. ,.... What are you talking about? This makes no sense at all. Again you are entirely missing the point.

For the last several posts, we've been discussing, for some reason, jury nullification, i. e., the fact that a jury in a criminal case has the power to bring in a "not guilty" verdict even when contrary to the law and the facts. And I've referred to the experiences of Black Americans solely to illustrate that this power can be used, and has been used, to actually subvert justice. But have I once suggested that we must eliminate the power of a jury to ignore the facts and the law in acquitting a criminal defendant?

In fact, I have not. And in fact, there is nothing that can be done about jury nullification, even if it sometimes results in injustice. It is a necessary side effect of the legal doctrine that one may not be placed in jeopardy more than once for the same crime, and thus a jury verdict of acquittal is final and non-reviewable. That may not always yield a good result, but it can not change.

The power of the jury to ignore the law and the facts in acquitting a criminal defendant is thus a direct consequence of, and inexorably tied to, the prohibition on double jeopardy. That power can not be removed without discarding the prohibition on double jeopardy, and that would be completely unthinkable. The prohibition on double jeopardy is a vital protection built into our law, preventing multiple prosecutions of an acquitted defendant as a means of harassment or oppression.

...Citizen rights are the issue here with a CCW permit holder being allowed to enter a private establishment with a firearm. The “law” says a business owner has the right to refuse entry and my opinion is that this “law” infringes on a law abiding citizen’s civil right to having a means of self defense.... And a law prohibiting a business from doing so would infringe on the business' right to control its premises. And thus conflicting rights rub against each other.

At present the law favors the rights of the business in this regard. But laws can be changed by legislative bodies. If you think that the law should be changed, our system gives you a means by which to try to do that.

An interesting side issue that seems to be getting missed is that while business can bar guns, and some do, many do not. And some businesses which have done so in the past, have, because of pressure from customers, reversed their policies. And so whether a business chooses to bar guns is another thing susceptible to the forces of the free market.

The Starbucks matter, which started this thread, is a shinning example of how free market forces can work. Starbucks raised the hackles of the Brady Bunch by announcing a policy of permitting customers to wear their lawfully carried guns. Why did Starbucks make the announcement? It did so because an arch and long time rival in some markets, Peet's Coffees, announced, in response to negative customer feed back resulting from some of the Unloaded Open Carry demonstrations in the San Francisco Bay Area of California, that it (Peet's) would bar guns. So Starbucks took the opportunity to distinguish itself from a competitor.