Pass a test to use a protected right?

[Fishlore]

For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d’état at the group’s annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power—as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party.The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”

And so, eventually, this theory became the law of the land. In District of Columbia v. Heller, decided in 2008, the Supreme Court embraced the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment. It was a triumph above all for Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the opinion, but it required him to craft a thoroughly political compromise. In the eighteenth century, militias were proto-military operations, and their members had to obtain the best military hardware of the day. But Scalia could not create, in the twenty-first century, an individual right to contemporary military weapons—like tanks and Stinger missiles. In light of this, Scalia conjured a rule that said D.C. could not ban handguns because “handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”

So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? - The New Yorker

 

[FA_Q2]

Pass a citizenship test for citizenship, then pass a gun-ownership test for gun-ownership, whether a natural born citizen or not. It can be lawfully accomodated.
Our mass killings are out of control and it is totally un-American not to think out-of-the-box towards rectifying this issue.
We can keep our 2nd amendment rights and elevate public safety, too!

Alright! I'm open to your suggestions how we can do that.

Background checks combined/compared against an AMP (anger management profile). The AMP I have in mind has 5 scales:

-Truthfulness
-Alcohol
-Drugs
-Anger (violence)
-Stress Coping Abilities

It has been means tested since 1982, takes 25 min. to take (2 mins. to score-computer based), has a self-evolving database correction system, and a validity error factor of 2-3%.
Pass both the Background check and the AMP, get your gun. It won't completely eradicate mass killings, but maybe will lower them compared to what we have today.
My wife is on my back to contact a local congressional rep. about it, but don't know if I want to go through the hassle (am a retired counselor here in NV. that worked for the Courts for 22 yrs. and have sat on various state level committees).

I am also pro-2nd amendment rights but am also fed up with fellow Americans being gunned down too often in these mass shootings.
My wife thinks that my background, idea, and expertise would help, and I believe it would too, but, in all honesty I am on the fence.

Thanks for asking, GW!

"but maybe will lower them"

Gun control has been tried a thousand times a thousand different ways and it never works. Homicide rates continue to rise or fall as though the laws did not exist weather the restrictions are increased or lowered.

A post from awhile ago that shows further control of the weapon used is irrelevant:

So, here we go again.

Clearly I am going to have to remake this argument in a few places so I am going to rework another post I did in one of these other threads. For those of you that heave read this from me, skip it. For the rest of the slow class: gun control advocates have no evidence supporting their demands. I ask the OP, how are the gun advocates on the 'wrong' side when you have no data to support your point where they have tons.

All over the place on this board I am seeing people demanding gun control and making a wide variety of claims about what we need or do not need but one thing is utterly lacking IN EVERY FUCKING THREAD: facts. I can count the number of facts used in the 10+ threads calling for gun reforms on one hand. Get educated, we have passed laws already and we have metrics to gauge their effectiveness.

First, common misinformation techniques must be addressed because you still find all kinds of false claims about higher 'death' rates with lax gin laws that are outright false. The metric we need to be looking at is homicides. Lots of people like to use 'gun' deaths but that is a rather useless term because you are not really measuring anything. That term is not fully defined and it is not as easily tracked and compared with different years as a solid statistic. I also hope that we can agree that what instrument kills the victim is irrelevant. If gun deaths are cut by 25% but knife deaths increase the same number by 50% we have not made progress. Rather, we regressed and are worse off. The real relevant information here is how many people are killed overall and whether or not stricter gun laws results in fewer deaths or crimes. That is what the gun control advocates are claiming.


Another common misinformation tactic is to compare US deaths to those on other countries. comparing international numbers is also utterly meaningless. Why, you ask. Well, that's simple. Scientific data requires that we control for other variables. Comparing US to Brittan is meaningless because there are thousands of variables that make a huge difference. Not only the proliferation of guns that already exists and the current gun laws but also things as basic as culture, diversity, population density, police forces and a host of other things would need to be accounted for. That is utterly impossible. Mexico and Switzerland can be used on the other side of the argument of Brittan and in the end we have learned nothing by doing this. How do we overcome this? Also, simple. You compare the crime rates before and after gun legislation has passed. We can do that here and in Brittan.
Gun Control - Just Facts

Here we see a rather large spike directly after gun laws are strengthened and no real increase after they are removed. Washington apparently did not get the memo that homicides were supposed to decrease after they passed their law.

Here we have Chicago where there is no discernable difference before and after the ban. Again, we are not seeing any real positive effects here. As a matter of fact, the rate has worsened as compared to the overall rate in the country even though it has slightly decreased. Form the caption:

Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.

Then we can use this same tactic in measuring the effectiveness in Britton. Lets actually look at the real numbers over there as well:

Oops, even in Brittan, when we account for other factors by using their OWN crime rates, we find that gun laws have NOT reduced the homicides they have suffered. Seems we are developing a pattern here. At least Chicago seen some reduction though it was far less than the national average decrease.


Then, you could always argue, what happens when we relax gun laws. If the gun 'grabbers' were correct, crimes rate would skyrocket (or at least go up). Does that happen:

Guess not. The homicide rate in Florida fell rather rapidly and faster than the national average. In Texas we get a similar result:

Then there are other statistics that do matter very much like the following:

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

Clearly, claiming that gun control leads to better outcomes is blatantly false. Look at the data, it is conclusive that gun laws most certainly do not have any positive impact on homicides or any other meaningful metric. If you have information that states otherwise then please post it. I have yet to see some solid statistical evidence that points to gun control as being a competent way of reducing deaths. I hope I have not wasted my time getting this information. Try reading it, it will enlighten you.


In conclusion, over 10 separate threads have simply ceased to continue because not a single lefty here has any response to the given facts. I have serious doubts that the OP will be any different but I wait with bated breath for one single person to actually support their demands with something that resembles fact. So far, I have received nothing.

Something, at the least, needs to be done towards the aim of harm reduction related to mass shootings.

I don't think it does.

Something certainly should be done about the violence in this nation and that would effect mass shootings but mass shootings, in general, are not even close to an issue. FAR MORE people are killed every day by homicide than by mass killings. They are very sad events but so are the dozens killed daily in every metro area in the nation.

What needs to be done to curb violence is another story altogether. It is a cultural problem in general and you cannot legislate culture changes. Poverty is another major source of violence.

 

[FA_Q2]

For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d’état at the group’s annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power—as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party.The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”

And so, eventually, this theory became the law of the land. In District of Columbia v. Heller, decided in 2008, the Supreme Court embraced the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment. It was a triumph above all for Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the opinion, but it required him to craft a thoroughly political compromise. In the eighteenth century, militias were proto-military operations, and their members had to obtain the best military hardware of the day. But Scalia could not create, in the twenty-first century, an individual right to contemporary military weapons—like tanks and Stinger missiles. In light of this, Scalia conjured a rule that said D.C. could not ban handguns because “handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”

So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? - The New Yorker

Asinine.
The first 'trumped' the second? That is a nonsensical statement. There is reason whatsoever that the first part would trump the second. The only real argument is weather or not they are connected. To state that the last hundred years shows they were connected to the point of a requirement is ignorant - gun ownership has not been connected to the militia for a very long time (and not since the 14th AFAIK).

Scalia didn't 'conjure' anything. he simple reiterated the wording - the right of the PEOPLE. It is beyond me how so many have duped themselves into thinking that the seconds wording is so convoluted when it is actually crystal clear what right is conveyed and who it is conveyed upon. The ONLY reason to convoluted it is because some want to justify an already held opinion.

 

[Dan Daly]

For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d’état at the group’s annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power—as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party.The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”

And so, eventually, this theory became the law of the land. In District of Columbia v. Heller, decided in 2008, the Supreme Court embraced the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment. It was a triumph above all for Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the opinion, but it required him to craft a thoroughly political compromise. In the eighteenth century, militias were proto-military operations, and their members had to obtain the best military hardware of the day. But Scalia could not create, in the twenty-first century, an individual right to contemporary military weapons—like tanks and Stinger missiles. In light of this, Scalia conjured a rule that said D.C. could not ban handguns because “handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”

So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? - The New Yorker

What a bunch of debunked horsepucky.

 

[Dan Daly]

Why is killing people with a gun a right? Why isn't food a right or education a right???

The world would be a better place if education and food was a right...The world sucks because of all the assholes wanting to kill each other.

Killing people with a gun is a right provided you are using death for self-defense. However if you are referring to criminals having the right to kill people, no, they don't. There is no right for criminals to attack, assault or kill anybody.

Ray, buddy, you might want to reword that a bit. Nobody "uses death as self defense". We may use deadly force to defend ourselves, but even then we're usually not thinking death as per the other party, but rather as, holy crap I don't want to die". Indeed, it is that fear of our own death that makes it self defense.

FYI I was born and raised in Cleveland and my dad was a Cleveland cop. I live south a few counties now. Howdy neighbor.

 

[B. Kidd]

The difference between homicide and mass shootings (4 or more victims) is that in most homicides the perp and victim know each other.
Mass shootings are indescriminate and have been occurring more often categorically. Of course, body counts are drastically higher within the homicide category. What makes the increase in mass shootings more alarming is not the comparative body counts, but the increased frequency of mass shootings as a category by themself along with the randomness.
Still, both are a public health issue.

 

[Dan Daly]

The difference between homicide and mass shootings (4 or more victims) is that in most homicides the perp and victim know each other.
Mass shootings are indescriminate and have been occurring more often categorically. Of course, body counts are drastically higher within the homicide category. What makes the increase in mass shootings more alarming is not the comparative body counts, but the increased frequency of mass shootings as a category by themself along with the randomness.
Still, both are a public health issue.

If you'd dig a little deeper (unless you purposely did not) you would see the consensus in law enforcement is that the increase in so-called mass shootings is caused mostly by gang related shootings. Passing off as a "public health" issue is just a means of making it political and ensuring that people totally unfamiliar with the subject are doing the "research". The problem is a sociological issue and an law enforcement issue. Or perhaps you'd like the cops doing cancer research?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why is killing people with a gun a right? Why isn't food a right or education a right???

The world would be a better place if education and food was a right...The world sucks because of all the assholes wanting to kill each other.

Killing people with a gun is a right provided you are using death for self-defense. However if you are referring to criminals having the right to kill people, no, they don't. There is no right for criminals to attack, assault or kill anybody.

Ray, buddy, you might want to reword that a bit. Nobody "uses death as self defense". We may use deadly force to defend ourselves, but even then we're usually not thinking death as per the other party, but rather as, holy crap I don't want to die". Indeed, it is that fear of our own death that makes it self defense.

FYI I was born and raised in Cleveland and my dad was a Cleveland cop. I live south a few counties now. Howdy neighbor.

Hello fellow Clevelander.

Yes, I did not think of my wording all that well, but you are correct. Except in the state of Ohio, you can use deadly force (if a CCW holder) simply because you believe somebody may harm you. It doesn't have to be a death threat.

Our law (like many CCW laws across the country) reads: A CCW holder may use deadly force if they believe that they, or others, are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. That's our law.

The gray areas are what is the legal definition of serious bodily harm? There is no legal definition for that. Also, if a prosecutor wants to charge me with murder instead of self-defense, how does he prove what I "believed" at the time? Only I know what I believed unless I'm stupid enough to post it on Facebook or something.

In our state, we have a lot of protection for a licensed concealed firearm user. But our laws also give a lot of leverage to the judge and perhaps jury whether we used those gray areas legally and wisely. First of course is that a prosecutor has to have enough evidence to bring charges against us first, and that's a little tough.

 

[Dan Daly]

Why is killing people with a gun a right? Why isn't food a right or education a right???

The world would be a better place if education and food was a right...The world sucks because of all the assholes wanting to kill each other.

Killing people with a gun is a right provided you are using death for self-defense. However if you are referring to criminals having the right to kill people, no, they don't. There is no right for criminals to attack, assault or kill anybody.

Ray, buddy, you might want to reword that a bit. Nobody "uses death as self defense". We may use deadly force to defend ourselves, but even then we're usually not thinking death as per the other party, but rather as, holy crap I don't want to die". Indeed, it is that fear of our own death that makes it self defense.

FYI I was born and raised in Cleveland and my dad was a Cleveland cop. I live south a few counties now. Howdy neighbor.

Hello fellow Clevelander.

Yes, I did not think of my wording all that well, but you are correct. Except in the state of Ohio, you can use deadly force (if a CCW holder) simply because you believe somebody may harm you. It doesn't have to be a death threat.

Our law (like many CCW laws across the country) reads: A CCW holder may use deadly force if they believe that they, or others, are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. That's our law.

The gray areas are what is the legal definition of serious bodily harm? There is no legal definition for that. Also, if a prosecutor wants to charge me with murder instead of self-defense, how does he prove what I "believed" at the time? Only I know what I believed unless I'm stupid enough to post it on Facebook or something.

In our state, we have a lot of protection for a licensed concealed firearm user. But our laws also give a lot of leverage to the judge and perhaps jury whether we used those gray areas legally and wisely. First of course is that a prosecutor has to have enough evidence to bring charges against us first, and that's a little tough.

From a lot of experience with prosecutors and shooting related trials in our state, if you have to use your firearm in self defense, CCW or not (open carry is perfectly legal in our state) you best be telling the judge and/or jury that you were in fear of your life or someone else's life...and not just worried about being "harmed". The law is clear, death or SERIOUS bodily harm...which in the eyes of many judges and juries is pretty close to death.

 

[FA_Q2]

The difference between homicide and mass shootings (4 or more victims) is that in most homicides the perp and victim know each other.
Mass shootings are indescriminate and have been occurring more often categorically. Of course, body counts are drastically higher within the homicide category. What makes the increase in mass shootings more alarming is not the comparative body counts, but the increased frequency of mass shootings as a category by themself along with the randomness.
Still, both are a public health issue.

I do not necessarily agree with the premise here but for arguments sake I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Lets agree that something needs to be done then - what makes you think that gun control is a viable answer?

I gave you quite a bit of data though it centers around homicide rates it does show that gun laws do nothing to stop those that want to kill. Why do you think it will suddenly be different in this instance? More importantly, why do you think that this supposed reduction in mass killings is a greater good than the restriction of self defense for the other 300 million people in this nation?

We are talking about an indecent every 64 days if you are using the data-set that I think you are.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You want to violate the law because of a minor problem? What next? Sorry but the Government won't be free to do anything they want because there are 300 million firearms in private hands. if only 3 percent resist that is a huge number of people armed and ready to fight to resist tyranny.

People being killed is a minor problem? Do you mean minor as in some minors are being killed?

 

[frigidweirdo]

For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d’état at the group’s annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power—as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party.The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”

And so, eventually, this theory became the law of the land. In District of Columbia v. Heller, decided in 2008, the Supreme Court embraced the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment. It was a triumph above all for Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the opinion, but it required him to craft a thoroughly political compromise. In the eighteenth century, militias were proto-military operations, and their members had to obtain the best military hardware of the day. But Scalia could not create, in the twenty-first century, an individual right to contemporary military weapons—like tanks and Stinger missiles. In light of this, Scalia conjured a rule that said D.C. could not ban handguns because “handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”

So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? - The New Yorker

That's complete rubbish. At no point in US history has the US Supreme Court ever ruled that there is a right of the states. States simply don't have rights. They have powers.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Supreme Court has already ruled that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and illegal. So anyone suggesting we require some sort of test before buying a firearm, you are not making either a reasonable or legal suggestion.

Can you cite the case(s) to which you are referring and how you define test or testing regarding firearms. That would be helpful to fully understanding your post.

So you never heard of the case when the Supreme Court ruled that Southern States could NOT administer a poll tax or require a written test to vote? What Country you from?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why is killing people with a gun a right? Why isn't food a right or education a right???

The world would be a better place if education and food was a right...The world sucks because of all the assholes wanting to kill each other.

Killing people with a gun is a right provided you are using death for self-defense. However if you are referring to criminals having the right to kill people, no, they don't. There is no right for criminals to attack, assault or kill anybody.

Ray, buddy, you might want to reword that a bit. Nobody "uses death as self defense". We may use deadly force to defend ourselves, but even then we're usually not thinking death as per the other party, but rather as, holy crap I don't want to die". Indeed, it is that fear of our own death that makes it self defense.

FYI I was born and raised in Cleveland and my dad was a Cleveland cop. I live south a few counties now. Howdy neighbor.

Hello fellow Clevelander.

Yes, I did not think of my wording all that well, but you are correct. Except in the state of Ohio, you can use deadly force (if a CCW holder) simply because you believe somebody may harm you. It doesn't have to be a death threat.

Our law (like many CCW laws across the country) reads: A CCW holder may use deadly force if they believe that they, or others, are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. That's our law.

The gray areas are what is the legal definition of serious bodily harm? There is no legal definition for that. Also, if a prosecutor wants to charge me with murder instead of self-defense, how does he prove what I "believed" at the time? Only I know what I believed unless I'm stupid enough to post it on Facebook or something.

In our state, we have a lot of protection for a licensed concealed firearm user. But our laws also give a lot of leverage to the judge and perhaps jury whether we used those gray areas legally and wisely. First of course is that a prosecutor has to have enough evidence to bring charges against us first, and that's a little tough.

From a lot of experience with prosecutors and shooting related trials in our state, if you have to use your firearm in self defense, CCW or not (open carry is perfectly legal in our state) you best be telling the judge and/or jury that you were in fear of your life or someone else's life...and not just worried about being "harmed". The law is clear, death or SERIOUS bodily harm...which in the eyes of many judges and juries is pretty close to death.

Correct which is why I said that even though we give the victim plenty of support, we also give similar support to the judge and jury.

I don't know if you remember this case a few years ago. But some clown went downtown to watch a Cavs game and got upset because the parking attendant refused to give him the spot he wanted. So he parked his car in the spot, went to the trunk of his car, pulled out his gun and killed the attendant. BTW, the attendant was also a CCW holder and was armed, it's just that he got caught by surprise.

There was no question about it. He tried to use our laws to defend his idiotic actions, but it didn't work. I believe he got something like 20 years in prison.

Before we had CCW and Castle Doctrine laws, I was in martial arts years before. Once I got to the level of Black Belt, I already had the training to kill a person five different ways in four moves or less. So I questioned my teacher about my legal obligations in the event I found myself in that position. After all, when you're fighting, you're not thinking of your moves, they just come out of you. Wax on-wax off.

His advice was that if I was ever in that situation, just stick to the story that I was attacked, and once I disabled my attacker from further attack, I went no further.

As you know, there is a fine line between self defense and manslaughter. You have to know how to phrase your words to authority.

 

[Dan Daly]

Why is killing people with a gun a right? Why isn't food a right or education a right???

The world would be a better place if education and food was a right...The world sucks because of all the assholes wanting to kill each other.

Killing people with a gun is a right provided you are using death for self-defense. However if you are referring to criminals having the right to kill people, no, they don't. There is no right for criminals to attack, assault or kill anybody.

Ray, buddy, you might want to reword that a bit. Nobody "uses death as self defense". We may use deadly force to defend ourselves, but even then we're usually not thinking death as per the other party, but rather as, holy crap I don't want to die". Indeed, it is that fear of our own death that makes it self defense.

FYI I was born and raised in Cleveland and my dad was a Cleveland cop. I live south a few counties now. Howdy neighbor.

Hello fellow Clevelander.

Yes, I did not think of my wording all that well, but you are correct. Except in the state of Ohio, you can use deadly force (if a CCW holder) simply because you believe somebody may harm you. It doesn't have to be a death threat.

Our law (like many CCW laws across the country) reads: A CCW holder may use deadly force if they believe that they, or others, are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. That's our law.

The gray areas are what is the legal definition of serious bodily harm? There is no legal definition for that. Also, if a prosecutor wants to charge me with murder instead of self-defense, how does he prove what I "believed" at the time? Only I know what I believed unless I'm stupid enough to post it on Facebook or something.

In our state, we have a lot of protection for a licensed concealed firearm user. But our laws also give a lot of leverage to the judge and perhaps jury whether we used those gray areas legally and wisely. First of course is that a prosecutor has to have enough evidence to bring charges against us first, and that's a little tough.

From a lot of experience with prosecutors and shooting related trials in our state, if you have to use your firearm in self defense, CCW or not (open carry is perfectly legal in our state) you best be telling the judge and/or jury that you were in fear of your life or someone else's life...and not just worried about being "harmed". The law is clear, death or SERIOUS bodily harm...which in the eyes of many judges and juries is pretty close to death.

Correct which is why I said that even though we give the victim plenty of support, we also give similar support to the judge and jury.

I don't know if you remember this case a few years ago. But some clown went downtown to watch a Cavs game and got upset because the parking attendant refused to give him the spot he wanted. So he parked his car in the spot, went to the trunk of his car, pulled out his gun and killed the attendant. BTW, the attendant was also a CCW holder and was armed, it's just that he got caught by surprise.

There was no question about it. He tried to use our laws to defend his idiotic actions, but it didn't work. I believe he got something like 20 years in prison.

Before we had CCW and Castle Doctrine laws, I was in martial arts years before. Once I got to the level of Black Belt, I already had the training to kill a person five different ways in four moves or less. So I questioned my teacher about my legal obligations in the event I found myself in that position. After all, when you're fighting, you're not thinking of your moves, they just come out of you. Wax on-wax off.

His advice was that if I was ever in that situation, just stick to the story that I was attacked, and once I disabled my attacker from further attack, I went no further.

As you know, there is a fine line between self defense and manslaughter. You have to know how to phrase your words to authority.

I remember that moron. I remember the parking attendant too, I gave him a turkey once.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Supreme Court has already ruled that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and illegal. So anyone suggesting we require some sort of test before buying a firearm, you are not making either a reasonable or legal suggestion.

Can you cite the case(s) to which you are referring and how you define test or testing regarding firearms. That would be helpful to fully understanding your post.

So you never heard of the case when the Supreme Court ruled that Southern States could NOT administer a poll tax or require a written test to vote? What Country you from?

What they could do is make a test for someone to carry their gun around. Being able to own a gun is a right, being able to carry it around is not. (unless it involves buying or selling the gun, and then it would have to be stored correctly if they so choose to make such a law).

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The Supreme Court has already ruled that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and illegal. So anyone suggesting we require some sort of test before buying a firearm, you are not making either a reasonable or legal suggestion.

Can you cite the case(s) to which you are referring and how you define test or testing regarding firearms. That would be helpful to fully understanding your post.

So you never heard of the case when the Supreme Court ruled that Southern States could NOT administer a poll tax or require a written test to vote? What Country you from?

Where did you get your Sea Lawyer degree, Gunny?

To which civil rights case(s) are you referring? The topic of the OP you initiated was about FIREARMS!! I had a two part question. Will you answer the two questions or dissemble again?

 

[Slyhunter]

The Supreme Court has already ruled that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and illegal. So anyone suggesting we require some sort of test before buying a firearm, you are not making either a reasonable or legal suggestion.

Can you cite the case(s) to which you are referring and how you define test or testing regarding firearms. That would be helpful to fully understanding your post.

So you never heard of the case when the Supreme Court ruled that Southern States could NOT administer a poll tax or require a written test to vote? What Country you from?

What they could do is make a test for someone to carry their gun around. Being able to own a gun is a right, being able to carry it around is not. (unless it involves buying or selling the gun, and then it would have to be stored correctly if they so choose to make such a law).

hmmm

 

[Dan Daly]

The Supreme Court has already ruled that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and illegal. So anyone suggesting we require some sort of test before buying a firearm, you are not making either a reasonable or legal suggestion.

Can you cite the case(s) to which you are referring and how you define test or testing regarding firearms. That would be helpful to fully understanding your post.

So you never heard of the case when the Supreme Court ruled that Southern States could NOT administer a poll tax or require a written test to vote? What Country you from?

What they could do is make a test for someone to carry their gun around. Being able to own a gun is a right, being able to carry it around is not. (unless it involves buying or selling the gun, and then it would have to be stored correctly if they so choose to make such a law).

uh, what part of "keep and BEAR arms" don't you understand?

Free men don't need permission to own or carry.

 

[Slyhunter]

The Supreme Court has already ruled that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and illegal. So anyone suggesting we require some sort of test before buying a firearm, you are not making either a reasonable or legal suggestion.

Can you cite the case(s) to which you are referring and how you define test or testing regarding firearms. That would be helpful to fully understanding your post.

So you never heard of the case when the Supreme Court ruled that Southern States could NOT administer a poll tax or require a written test to vote? What Country you from?

What they could do is make a test for someone to carry their gun around. Being able to own a gun is a right, being able to carry it around is not. (unless it involves buying or selling the gun, and then it would have to be stored correctly if they so choose to make such a law).

uh, what part of "keep and BEAR arms" don't you understand?

Free men don't need permission to own or carry.

aha "Bear", for a minute there thought he had something.