October 15, 2010

The right to carry a concealed weapon: "It’s not a left or right type of thing quite frankly. It’s a liberty thing."

Says the lawyer who won a motion to dismiss — on 2d Amendment grounds — a case against a man who was carrying a knife in his waistband.

Via Instapundit.

Another Wisconsin case.

50 comments:

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


There will be blood in the streets from this…mark my words. “Liberty,” indeed, when everyone is carry an assault switch blade it will be JUST like “Westside Story” every day, all over America!

Calypso Facto said...

I loved this bumper sticker recently I saw (near Clark County, actually):

Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control.

Also, apparently encompasses knives, according to Judge Counsell.

Calypso Facto said...

"recently I saw"? Been reading too much America's Politico here...

Hoosier Daddy said...

Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control.

I think they had pretty strict gun control in Kosovo and we saw how that turned out.

traditionalguy said...

The fighters for a free man's status from King George and his bloody Army resolved to insert the 2nd amendment for protection from all future Kings, whether from England or from Kenya. Tea Party critics please note that the resolve not to be made into a King's serfs has no anger ...it is a resolve that runs deeper than the temporary emotion of anger. See you at the polls Nov.2nd, where the Tea Party plans to re-enact the Battle of Kings Mountain.

Treacle said...

"It’s not a left or right type of thing quite frankly. It’s a liberty thing."

He wouldn't say that if Kitty Dukakis was attacked and raped at gunpoint.

ndspinelli said...

Well, if it goes to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the Abrahamson/Crooks court will overrule in a heartbeat.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


All joking aside, it IS a “liberty” question. But I’d like to take a bit further…how much liberty is constitutional? I have a “right” to speech and a right to bear arms, Ok, but courts limit my ability to speak, using Reasonable Time, Place and Manner rules. What would be the equivalent for arms?

For those who question RTMP limits on speech, can I speak ANYWHERE? Jail, Federal Prison, the National Military Command Centre? And if we apply a very loose definition of RTMP on arms, am I allowed a nuclear weapon, a M-777 155mm howitzer? If not, why not? How do we determine the “reasonableness” of my armament?

I’m kind of interested in people’s takes on this, beyond the simple “Gunz is good/Gunz is Bad” arguments.

Scott M said...

It would be nice to live in a society of serious adults that agreed with Machiavelli on the evils of being unarmed.

MadisonMan said...

I infer from reading that the police were looking for a reason to arrest the guy. I'm surprised someone who be arrested just for carrying a knife in their waistband. I wonder what the rest of the story is.

Scott M said...

He probably had a sign on his back (placed covertly by a lawyer that wanted a test case) that read, "Cops suck".

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
I wonder what the rest of the story is.

They may have felt he was a Zombie. Zombies are a large, if under-reported, threat to our National Safety and Well-Being. Which leads to ask, “Are Zombies covered by the US Constitution?”

Scott M said...

Are Zombies covered by the US Constitution?

While everyone does indeed ignore the growing threat of the walking blight, someone's going to end up in court at some point over this. It really goes back to "when does a human become a citizen (a far more important questions re abortion). From that same line of logic, though, when does a citizen cease being a citizen. The easy answer is, of course, when the properly vested authority declares them as dead and issues a certificate stating such.

That's all well and good as long as they have the common decency to stay still and laying down. If they get up, walk around, and tend to eat people, you have to question where their right to unlife, liberty and the pursuit of brains interference with my not wanting to become one of them.

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hoosier Daddy said...

While I am a great supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I still can't help but admire Wyatt Earp who, despite the myth, wasn't a gunfighter at all. Didn't even carry a gun until he was became Peacemaker. His preferred method of self defense was beating the living piss out of people.

Just think garage, if you had lived back then you'd be able to do a lot of swimming.

MadisonMan said...

you can't use words like "centre" and then comment about the constitution

As a native of Centre County, I object.

quilbill said...

I agree with MM. I'm a law enforcement expert (I watch "Cops"), and cops charge the people they arrest with everything they can possible dream up.

But I like the ruling.

GMay said...

What's this? Another thread where Hoosier is posting and yet no posts from America's Politico?

See? I told you guys it was him pulling your leg. Hoosier, you sly dog you.

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott M said...

GMay

Email me at ags1776@hotmail.com so we can start a list of people hereabouts that play teh strat games.

traditionalguy said...

Joe...The common carrying of guns in public needs to be accepted like the common carrying of a right arm. It works like military preparedness works: with the weakness of unarmed people we get regular violent theft by every mean person and their copycats. With the strength of guns showing such crimes almost never happen, and no copycats arise either. So it is a trade off. Either prevent thousands of crimes by violent thieves, or slow down an angry drunk from shooting a relative once in a blue moon. Hmmm. Such a hard choice to make.

former law student said...

How do you carry a knife concealed in your waistband? Without it stabbing your flab, in particular. A picture would really be helpful.

I often carry a pocketknife "concealed*" in my pocket, so I'm a little concerned about how this law is interpreted.

*Should I hang it from my belt, to make it unconcealed? Shouldn't a pocket knife go in your pocket?

Hoosier Daddy said...

See? I told you guys it was him pulling your leg. Hoosier, you sly dog you.

Not me I swear. I'd at least try to be funnier than AP if I was going to sockpuppet.

My guess is its Titus.

Email me at ags1776@hotmail.com so we can start a list of people hereabouts that play teh strat games.

Awesome.

Hoosier Daddy said...

How do you carry a knife concealed in your waistband?

Stick the knife between your belt and pants and untuck your shirt to cover it.

Easy peasy

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Either prevent thousands of crimes by violent thieves, or slow down an angry drunk from shooting a relative once in a blue moon. Hmmm. Such a hard choice to make.

Not the point or question I asked. I asked, what RTPM limits may be placed on my right to carry, either openly or concealed. As Yul Brenner once said, “Don’t understand me so well.” There’s no veiled anti-gun control message here. I pointed out that courts have long held there is no absolute right to speech. It follows, then, there is no absolute right to bear arms.

What would be considered a REASONABLE set of limitations? So, in your world I can own a 155mm howitzer? How about a reconditioned MGM-52 Lance, SSM, the one with the cluster munition warhead? If not, why not? May I pack, either openly or concealed, my favourite weapon, the Karl Gustaf RCLR? Or am I limited to pistols, shot guns, and long-weapons? Under what theory or theories?

That was my question, not whether or no, you can carry a weapon, but what weapons ought I be “allowed” to carry? As, even though you have a right to speak, you may not speak at a jail or at the NMCC, or in a school, or my front porch, at any time or on any subject. Though you CAN speak on the court house steps, pretty much at will.

GMay said...

Scott,

Oh man, I'm all about it, but my good computer is down right now, I'm about to close on a business purchase and start working again, but when everything settles and my computer doesn't suck, I'd be more than happy to join in.

I got your e-mail, so take it down before you get signed up for something like an opusonemedia newsletter or something, quick.

Scott M said...

its a hotmail account and designed for spam :)

traditionalguy said...

Joe...The answer is that free men can carry whatever a Militia man carries into battle, and no less than SWAT team carries because the free man IS the police he must rely upon 90% of the time. What is our Constitutional government so afraid of from armed citizens?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

it will be JUST like “Westside Story” every day, all over America!


AWESOME!!

We'll all be snapping our fingers, high kicking and breaking out into song and dance at random moments.

I'm for it!!

When you're a Jet you're a Jet all the waaaaay......

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I carry a pocket knife in my purse at all times and have a leatherman/with knife in my car console. I guess those both count as concealed weapons.


Email me at ags1776@hotmail.com so we can start a list of people hereabouts that play teh strat games.


Is that like Civilization and Starcraft? I play WoW online :-)

Alex said...

I think it would be a lot safer to carry a switchblade then a regular dagger. But some have been known to carry a cutlass.

Scott M said...

Is that like Civilization and Starcraft? I play WoW online :-)

You play crap :)

I'm up for whatever. Civilization (of which V just came out) and the Total War titles have been mentioned time and time again. Somewhat less on the MMO's.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Civilization (of which V just came out)

I've played Civilization as a stand alone (not online) game but quit some time ago as it seemed like work :-D. Plus playing alone was boring.

Same thing for the SIMs. Too much work. Although I did go through a phase where I purposely made my SIMs unhappy, miserable and tried to get them to committ suicide. They were always whining about being bored, hungry, dirty etc so I tried to kill them.

Kirk Parker said...

"Zombies are a large, if under-reported, threat... [emphasis added]"

Ummm, your reading and viewing lists are seriously out of date.


FLS,

It's probably something like this, but clipped into the waistband instead of the pocket, so an untucked shirt will cover it.


DBQ,

You left out the part about the babes all hot for you every time you have a little dustup.

former law student said...

I can't resist Alex's cutlass set up. This shows the problem of carrying an edged weapon:

A pirate, history relates
Was scuffling with some of his mates
When he slipped on a cutlass
Which rendered him nutless
And practically useless on dates


Kirk: thanks for the photo.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I'm up for whatever. Civilization (of which V just came out) and the Total War titles have been mentioned time and time again. Somewhat less on the MMO's.

Ok I'm going to have to get Civ 5 and see if it lives up to the hype ;-)

I haven't played it since Civ 3 so it should be interesting to see the changes.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Joe...The answer is that free men can carry whatever a Militia man carries into battle, and no less than SWAT team carries because the free man IS the police he must rely upon 90% of the time. What is our Constitutional government so afraid of from armed citizens?

So when the New Black Panthers unveil their array of armoured cars, heavy mortars, and ManPADS systems, say the SA-16 or a Stinger POST RMP, you’ll be down with all this, then?

fivewheels said...

There has been a run of muggings/robberies outside my workplace over the last month, in which people have been forced at knifepoint and gunpoint to yield wallets, phones and laptops.

The police have accomplished nothing. And I happen to own a few flashy knives of my own that I'm pretty adept with (including a lovely Benchmade kriss blade balisong). I assume that carrying one in my jacket pocket is illegal in Chicago, but I'm not going to use it for so much as opening a package if I don't have to. Still, if some punk comes at me or the young lady I walk to her car at night, I would rather be able to attempt a stupid Crocodile Dundee-type negotiation or even, in the worst-case scenario, actually hurt him than hand over my gear.

It honestly does bother me that I don't have more respect for the law than that, as a typical play-by-the-rules guy. But I know it's not going to ever come to the attention of the police unless and until I'm attacked. So should I stop? I probably won't.

save_the_rustbelt said...

I have carried at least one pocket knife since I was 11 years old, sometimes more than 1 and sometimes a very large knife meant for cutting people who want to hurt me.

Should I stay out of Wisconisn?

GMay said...

DBQ said: "Although I did go through a phase where I purposely made my SIMs unhappy, miserable and tried to get them to committ suicide. They were always whining about being bored, hungry, dirty etc so I tried to kill them."

Have you considered seeking a position in the current Administration?

(I know, it was low-hanging fruit, but I had to)

traditionalguy said...

Joe...Of course I will be down with that...and I will buy stock in weapons manufactures. That should jump start them again here and keep jobs in the good old USA. When something goes wrong, then firepower to stop it will be available. We have nothing to fear except fear itself. The oldest continual fear on record in the USA has been the coming day the Blacks rise up and kill us all in our sleep. It has been 180 years of BS, and any rational man with common sense will say stop it. And as a bonus, the Mexicans and the Canadians will suddenly hide their hatred of Americans again.

MadisonMan said...

Should I stay out of Wisconsin?

Don't try walking into any school.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

OK, then Traditional...I hope the med's kick in soon.

So your right to keep and bear is even more extensive than your right to free expression?

How would you justify that?

Synova said...

"So when the New Black Panthers unveil their array of armoured cars, heavy mortars, and ManPADS systems, say the SA-16 or a Stinger POST RMP, you’ll be down with all this, then?"

Yeah.

The hypothetical here, after all, is that all of those things are LEGAL. If they are legal anyone can have them and probably will. Holding up a Black Panther as a boogie man seems extreme but... what if the person with the big guns is David Koresh or some reclusive nut in Montana? Not so hypothetical anymore, right?

To an extent it's an act of faith to treat people as free men.

Throughout History free men have worn weapons as a symbol of their status.

Just the other day someone in the house flipped past a History channel program as the narrator explained that the Saxons were named after their unique knife and than Saxon men wore them particularly to distinguish between them and the slaves in the community. Over and over again in culture after culture subjugated people are disarmed. (Which certainly can include (as subjugated) those who have been convicted of crimes involving weapons or ruled mentally incompetent or not yet adult.)

Actual parity between rulers and citizens is impractical so I'm open to argument that symbolic parity doesn't require that people have the same weapons as their government, but I'm thinking that the "line" as it were, is somewhere up from semi-automatic pistols with limited magazine capacity, shot guns and hunting rifles, and pretty firmly in the range of "what a professional soldier would reasonably carry into combat" with additional legal possession of weapons that are normally "mounted."

And really, if the Black Panthers want to blow stuff up, gun control won't stop them. It is not actually more *dangerous* for these things to be legal. I'm not quite sure what that logical fallacy would be called, maybe just "straw man".

And I don't think it's actually illegal to own an armored car or to wear body armor.

Synova said...

"So your right to keep and bear is even more extensive than your right to free expression?

How would you justify that?
"

It's really not more extensive at all.

The limits to speech are the classic shouting "fire" thing or slander or fraud or libel. You can't damage a person by lying about them and you can't injure people by starting a panic to they get trampled and you can't excuse "jokes" that result in funds expended or that tie up emergency personnel on a hoax - if there is actually a real emergency they are kept from responding to or not.

No suggestion about the 2nd amendment are greater than those limitations. Threatening someone is threatening them the same if you've got a pistol or an M16 or a night-stick. People are as liable for accidental harm if it's a big gun or a small one... or your car.

Self-defense is self-defense no matter the bore dimensions.

traditionalguy said...

Joe without my right to keep and bear arms, there will be no right to free speech anyway. Bold speech is the act of a free man, and without arms we are not going to remain free men for long. The inner city neighborhoods soon become no go zones too dangerous for police. That is for the simple fact that unless 50%+ of the community supports the police, police are helpless there. That most often happens in areas in which carrying guns is considered to be crimes. Remember Plaxico Burris? Why should free men and women rely on a police force that simply cannot help them in time to stop assaults and robberies? And those salaries and benefits for a huge police department in cities are going to be gone with the wind soon. Rather than take meds for your fear, why not face reality and decide to live free?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

So your right to keep and bear is even more extensive than your right to free expression?

Possibly because our right to keep/bear arms and protect ourselves and our property, not only from bad people, but more importantly from a bad government ensures our ability to HAVE and retain the right of free speech

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott said...

Joe I must say I don't understand your fear of black people being armed although that fear was what helped the Klan and other racists get laws passed in many states preventing blacks from having an RKBA.
Arms typically is defined as personal weapons but until 1934 it pretty much meant anything you could afford, that's when machine guns artillery and some other weapons of the militia were made much more expensive to acquire. We could also look at the wording of the 1st amendment which says "congress shall make no law" implying the restriction only applied to the fed versus the 2nd which states "shall not be infringed" which is a blanket bar of government restriction that could be read as being a restriction of even local governments.
IMO regulations which would pass the strict scrutiny test applied to fundamental rights would be those which barred shooting within city limits, explosives storage and laws barring violence against another. The thought that the average person (of whatever color) would commit a violent act just because they had a firearm or nuke is idle fantasy disproved by the statistics of 5 million plus carry permit holders and 80 million legal gun owners in possession of upwards of 250 million guns. The violent crime rate in America has been dropping even as carry laws have been loosened. The rate of accidental shootings is also at an all time low and has been dropping steadily since the implementation of hunter safety courses in the 70's. D.C.s violent crime rate dropped after Heller by 25%, just the possibility of armed resistance seems to have caused some criminals to switch careers.