Jump to content



Photo

Judge & Town Council attack Second Amendment


  • Please log in to reply
318 replies to this topic

#21 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 08:20 PM

But "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" does. Donna, what do you find scary about a bunch of law abiding citizens carrying guns for their, and possibly your, protection?



#22 Pesty Version 2

Pesty Version 2

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,953 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 09:17 PM

I thought you said it was ok to ban guns in court.



#23 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 09:55 PM

What I said was that if the judge wanted to keep guns out of his courtroom then he could do that.

Edited by Russell Brooksbank, 19 March 2015 - 10:02 PM.

  • Pesty Version 2 likes this

#24 javajoe

javajoe

    Tourist

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 41 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 10:29 PM

What I said was that if the judge wanted to keep guns out of his courtroom then he could do that.

So you are for gun control in some instances. Please explain.

#25 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 11:07 PM

I am not in favor of violating anyone's right to bear arms. The issue of contention, from my understanding, was restricting guns in the public buildings like the town hall. What I meant was that the Judge already had a state law on his side granting him the legal authority to keep guns out of the courtroom. However, after further study, I cannot find the state law prohibiting guns in the courtroom. So I guess he doesn't have that authority, and that's a good thing. I believe that we all have the right to bear arms and the only restriction to that should be on private property. The property owner should be able to decide if they want to allow guns on their property or not. There are ways to secure a courtroom without violating anyone's rights.

#26 James-R-McClure-Jr

James-R-McClure-Jr

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 125 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 11:19 PM

Peace, Donna,

 

You guys are scary!  No thanks to your ideology.

 

And, yes, us "girls" do know our Declaration of Independence.  A "well regulated militia" does not mean carrying a weapon wherever you choose.

 

No thanks to the ideology of the Founders and Framers?

 

First, the phrase "well regulated" in the Second Amendment means, as is shown by the following quote from Federalist Papers #29, "a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training."  For the militia of The People to oppose the tyranny of a standing army (as the Founders and Framers had just done), they would have to be armed equally to the standing army they would oppose and be "well regulated" in the use of those arms.

 

"A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

 

Second, the entire Second Amendment reads, "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 subject of that single sentence is "the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms".  The predicate is "shall not be infringed".  The clause, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State," is not a complete sentence; it lacks a predicate and does not express a complete thought.  Everywhere in the Constitution where the Framers used the phrase "the People," they referred to the citizens of these united States only, not the federal government, not the States, not the military.  The meaning of the Amendment is clear.  Citizens have a god-given Right to possess and use firearms for self-defense (against all enemies foreign and domestic) and the government shall not infringe that Right. 


  • Russell Brooksbank likes this

#27 James-R-McClure-Jr

James-R-McClure-Jr

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 125 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 11:25 PM

Peace, Pesty Version 2,

 

Are you guys saying you think it's against the constitution to ban guns in the courtroom?

 

I'll stand with the Founders and Framers and the plain meaning of the Second Amendment.  The Right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. 

 

I would, personally, feel safer in a courtroom knowing that My fellow, law-abiding citizens were armed and could defend Me if necessary, rather than all of us being unarmed and helpless.



#28 Pesty Version 2

Pesty Version 2

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,953 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 11:31 PM

Should any limit be placed on the kind of arms one could possess in the courtroom?



#29 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 11:33 PM

Yes, (agreeing with James two posts up) disarming citizens who are not violating anyone's rights has never stopped those intent on violating those citizens rights. You can collect all the guns at the door, but what if the bad guy doesn't stop at the door?

Edited by Russell Brooksbank, 19 March 2015 - 11:47 PM.


#30 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 11:35 PM

I don't think a tank would fit through the door without causing massive damage and a huge bill to the taxpayers. So, tanks are definitely not allowed. ;-)
  • James-R-McClure-Jr likes this

#31 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 11:37 PM

Why should there be a limit?

#32 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 11:55 PM

Here's a solution. Close the courtroom itself to spectators. You can satisfy the right to observe the proceedings by providing a closed circuit TV system so that the public can monitor the proceedings or better yet, broadcast it on a local channel.

#33 Pesty Version 2

Pesty Version 2

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,953 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 07:38 AM

Does this mean the defendant in a trial be allowed to be armed?  Under the law he is presumed innocent and hasn't lost any rights. 



#34 TomD

TomD

    Commissioner

  • Moderators
  • 1,076 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 07:44 AM

...the Judge already had a state law on his side granting him the legal authority to keep guns out of the courtroom. However, after further study, I cannot find the state law prohibiting guns in the courtroom.

 

See IC 35-47-11.1-4(5)

 

This grants the authority.


Edited by TomD, 20 March 2015 - 08:29 AM.


#35 JeffResident

JeffResident

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 416 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 07:50 AM

Leave your freaking guns at home and grow up.

#36 woo

woo

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,724 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 08:03 AM

Leave your freaking guns at home and grow up.

Actually, asking others to give up their rights so that you may be happy is pretty childish.

It's this type of attitude that infringes on others freedom and pursuit of happiness.


  • TomD, James-R-McClure-Jr, littletommy and 1 other like this

#37 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 09:10 AM

JeffResident, it does me no good sitting at home locked in a safe. "Excuse me Mr. Robber sir, I would like to use a time out while I run home to get my gun. I apologize for the inconvenience."

#38 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 09:17 AM

Tom, respectfully, I don't believe it does. It says that the State law wasn't meant to stop local governments from doing it. What I was referring to was law specifically giving the Judge authority to make that decision. I know other states have laws like that, but I could not find one for Indiana.

#39 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 09:27 AM

Pesky, well at that point we are moving into an area where a person is basically in the courts custody, per se, and the courts would have authority, to limit the exercise of certain rights. As a defendant the Judge has authority to violate your freedom of movement by instructing the bailiff to make sure you don't leave. It would be the same authority that police would have to secure your weapon when they take you into custody. If and when you are found innocent then your weapon should be returned to yo
  • littletommy likes this

#40 tPoC

tPoC

    Tourist

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 09:28 AM

Should any limit be placed on the kind of arms one could possess in the courtroom?

Great question.  No takers?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users