How would pro-gun people here defend this?

[KingsGambit]

What would you guys have done in that situation?

To me there seems to be something utterly unbalanced about what that news article said happened. He could taunt and make a large crowd highly uncomfortable, freely, without anyone being able to do anything, just as he said. He got to fulfill a power fantasy. In any organisation, or anywhere with any form of moral backbone and the ability to enforce it, that gun would have been taken away from that man.

Can we all agree that while what he did wasn't illegal, it was sufficiently wrong so that he ought to have his gun forcefully taken away from him by law? He wasn't handling it responsible.

However if you don't think that the gun laws were tight enough, what sort of solution would you prefer?

Had it been a butcher's knife, I suspect they would have had cause to arrest him. This seems to create a strange legal situation, and I'm not sure how I feel about this.

Having said that, I wasn't privy to exactly what he was doing so it's hard for me to judge just how strange his actions were. I do agree that, on a moral level as opposed to a legal level, great responsibility comes with gun ownership and that this guy's actions fall short.

[Littlejoe]

CP can correct me if I'm wrong here, but if this had been Texas, he would have been arrested, even with a license. As Texas has Concealed carry only, and revealing a concealed weapon without reason is a violation of the CCL law.

[Cow Poke]

CP can correct me if I'm wrong here, but if this had been Texas, he would have been arrested, even with a license. As Texas has Concealed carry only, and revealing a concealed weapon without reason is a violation of the CCL law.

Correct. It is considered "brandishing a lethal weapon", and from what I can tell, it's even a GREATER offense if somebody IS licensed and does this, because there's prima facie evidence that they KNEW it was illegal.

[myth]

On the other hand, in my state, open carry is perfectly legal. Had the incident happened here, I suspect that the result would be roughly the same as happened in the article. I am aware of one pretty broad general statute concerning disorderly conduct that a particularly intrepid officer might try arresting him on, but I'd say the chance of a favorable probable cause ruling would be about 50-50...and I just don't see a conviction happening.

Seems like he was just some moron trying to make a political statement. While I understand parents being alarmed..honestly...they were scared because he made statements about his legal rights and asked if they wanted to see his gun? Maybe the article's leaving out a few details. I dunno, I just find that strange, not frightening. But then, I always have a gun on me, too (though the moron in the article wouldn't have known so unless I needed to use it).

[Teallaura]

In Alabama, we permit open carry but the property owner/agent has the right to refuse access to someone with a gun (no guns allowed). In this case, the property might have been public so an ordinance would be necessary (why it hasn't already been passed is a separate question).

The right to carry firearms is matched by the duty to not use them inappropriately. Being a moron doesn't prove or disprove anything about gun control - it just proves the guy is a moron.


FYI: I'm pro-gun control.

[lilpixieofterror]

I don't think there is any way to defend that.

[KingsGambit]

In Alabama, we permit open carry but the property owner/agent has the right to refuse access to someone with a gun (no guns allowed). In this case, the property might have been public so an ordinance would be necessary (why it hasn't already been passed is a separate question).

The right to carry firearms is matched by the duty to not use them inappropriately. Being a moron doesn't prove or disprove anything about gun control - it just proves the guy is a moron.


FYI: I'm pro-gun control.

My state just passed a law last week prohibiting cities from making their own gun ordinances.

[Teallaura]

eh, I can see the point but local governments interact with property in ways that more removed governments don't - or at least don't do as often - so that's kinda silly.

[ke7ejx]

What's really interesting is that before I got on Tweb yesterday, I wrote a four page paper on the importance of allowing American citizens their right to bear arms and defend themselves. This thread really reinforced how important the Second Amendment is to Americans.

[Jedidiah]

My state just passed a law last week prohibiting cities from making their own gun ordinances.

I see that as an excellent idea.

[KingsGambit]

I see that as an excellent idea.

I'm really surprised at how conservatives in the state are so supportive of a law that takes power away from local governments.

[Zymologist]

I'm really surprised at how conservatives in the state are so supportive of a law that takes power away from local governments.

I think it's more that conservatives in the state think it's a power that the local government shouldn't have in the first place.

[Jedidiah]

Cities do not, or should not, have the authority to override the Constitution. States do not, or should not, have the authority to override the Constitution. The Federal government does not, or should not, have the authority to override the Constitution.

[Teallaura]

Cities do have and should have the authority to regulate use and access to public parks. The Second Amendment is not a license to carry any gun anywhere - nor has it EVER been.

And for the record, until the Court held differently a few years back and finally incorporated the silly thing, the states had EVERY right to regulate guns UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. Being in the BoA does NOT automatically mean it applies to the states - the BoA didn't apply to the states AT ALL prior to the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments added after the Civil War.

Constitutional Law: It's what's for breakfast....

[KingsGambit]

That's correct. The Second Amendment says that guns cannot be banned altogether. It does not preclude reasonable restrictions from being passed regulating where they may be used.