Otis Nice Posted November 3, 2021 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2021 Also, any particular reason we're discussing this in the boat crew part of the site? Because I wasn't paying attention when I posted it. Moved this to the Gun Crew. I'm sure it was just a mistake in picking from the drop down where to post it. It was indeed...or maybe it wasn't because boating accident and all that. Thanks for moving it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace1647545504 Posted November 3, 2021 Report Share Posted November 3, 2021 kerry you are such a liberal ..you are putting your far left liberal bs on to me.. No I feel something more needs done in the prepping someone to be a gun owner but not more gun control I could put so much more but won't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyM3rC Posted November 3, 2021 Report Share Posted November 3, 2021 The requirement of taking a CCW class is a direct violation of the second amendment. It infringes the right to carry a handgun without taking that class , passing, and doing all the paperwork. To me, a regular old person, infringed means restricted in any way. Maybe they should have been more careful with their words, or maybe they were. Maybe if it's so unanimously agreed upon, they could repeal it like they did with prohibition or whatever that was. Easy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted November 3, 2021 Report Share Posted November 3, 2021 kerry you are such a liberal ..you are putting your far left liberal bs on to me.. No I feel something more needs done in the prepping someone to be a gun owner but not more gun control I could put so much more but won't Dude, all I did was ask you a direct question, which you still haven't answered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted November 3, 2021 Report Share Posted November 3, 2021 To me, a regular old person, infringed means restricted in any way. Maybe they should have been more careful with their words, or maybe they were. Maybe if it's so unanimously agreed upon, they could repeal it like they did with prohibition or whatever that was. Easy! language evolves, words change meaning and context all the time. Our founding fathers knew this because most of them spoke multiple languages and were born into wealth and education. They saw how the language evolved in their own time from their English and European born parents to their American born dialect. Our legal system is the way it is because of this understanding that language is evolving - it's part of what makes democracy a living thing and keeps our body of laws relevant. The unfortunate side effect is that the law sometimes defines words in a different way than how lay people define it, which adds to confusion. It's the reason why most legislation and a lot of contracts have a definition section. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unfunnyryan Posted November 4, 2021 Report Share Posted November 4, 2021 shall not be infringed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojoe Posted November 4, 2021 Report Share Posted November 4, 2021 To me, a regular old person, infringed means restricted in any way. Maybe they should have been more careful with their words, or maybe they were. Maybe if it's so unanimously agreed upon, they could repeal it like they did with prohibition or whatever that was. Easy! No argument there. I simply make the point that a CCW requirement is an infringement. People don't have to a free or like it. It just is what we have today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojoe Posted November 4, 2021 Report Share Posted November 4, 2021 (edited) Geeto, instead of responding to everyone else's comments and breaking them down to add your perspective, post your experience with firearms. Post your frequency of training. Share what you have found works for you for equipment, caliber or mind set to ensuring your safety and the safety of those around you. Your constant reply without expressing any background or personnel experience, simply comes off as someone with no kids telling parents how to raise their kids. Help us out. Edited November 4, 2021 by Mojoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trouble Maker Posted November 4, 2021 Report Share Posted November 4, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted November 4, 2021 Report Share Posted November 4, 2021 Geeto, instead of responding to everyone else's comments and breaking them down to add your perspective, post your experience with firearms. Post your frequency of training. Share what you have found works for you for equipment, caliber or mind set to ensuring your safety are the safety of those around you. Your constant reply without expressing any background or personnel experience, simply comes off as someone with no kids telling parents how to raise their kids. Help us out. I'm not going to give you as detailed a description as you probably want but this is what I am comfortable sharing. When I was 13 I was taught gun safety and marksmanship at my summer camp. this continued until I was 17 and a counselor at the camp. I was given a Winchester 67 . 22 when I was 16 by a neighbor. That weapon sits in a locked case in the closet of my parent's house and I have not fired it in quite some time. In college and through law school I held a Security Guard License in NY, and worked in various jobs related to the personal security, some unarmed (event security), some armed (Bodyguard, Transfer Escort). During this time I carried a Glock 19 or a Colt 1911 as part of my job. I was going to the range semi-regularly (couple times a month) and kept both locked in their cases when not on my person. When my Kid was born I sold any firearms I had (except for that rifle and my grandfather's service pistol), not wanting to risk having a firearm in the house with a young child. I haven't been to a range since I moved to Ohio, although I have flirted with the idea from time to time. I do see myself likely owning firearms again in the future once my kid is grown and out of the house. My brother is a stunt professional in the motion picture industry. He is an armorer, stunt coordinator, and director with requisite training. He is also an amateur gunsmith and bladesmith. his specialty is edge weapon and hand to hand fight coordination. In a professional capacity I have read and written a few of his contracts, as well as been on set with him as a guest more than a few times. I will be the first to admit that I do not have your and most of the people here's level of training, enthusiasm, or experience, but my experience is not zero. Although I personally look at firearms as a tool and it is not a hobby of mine , as a motorcycle enthusiast I understand and am very sympathetic to people who are gun enthusiasts. At some point I will probably own a firearm again, when my risk profile changes. That said the overwhelming majority of my comments come from my perspective as an attorney and a government regulatory professional, not as a gun owner. Many of the comments from others I see here have some deeply rooted misconceptions about some very basic things in the legal system. Satisfied? probably not but that is all the olive branch I am offering. Believe it or not I do respect your experience and the work you do in teaching the CCW classes. Based on things you have said here I do believe you are someone who really wants their students go get a lot of value out of the courses you teach and I have a lot of respect for that. I am disappointed when you do spread misinformation (esp. about the constitution), but I understand that you do travel in circles that may make it hard to see that it is misinformation due to how highly politicized this issue has become. I would rather this be a more give and take, open minded, discussion, but if you are coming in hot with "The requirement of taking a CCW class is a direct violation of the second amendment" it's hard to see how that is going to happen. be well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Cranium Posted November 4, 2021 Report Share Posted November 4, 2021 If anyone is interested in a range day let me know. I'm a member of a club out in West Jeff. I normally go Tuesday afternoons to shoot trap, but we also have 50 yard and 100 yard ranges as well. If anyone would like to try shooting trap please let me know. I'd be happy to take you with me on a Tuesday. I'll even supply the shells and let you use my shotgun if you don't have one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojoe Posted November 4, 2021 Report Share Posted November 4, 2021 Kerry, you have now given a baseline allowing people to share in your perspective. If you have talked about any of this before, I have not read it. It would seem your view point is being aware of operating within what the laws say and advising of that. Where as, many who frequently handle fire arms, employing these tools in a wide verity of ways, run into more and more restriction in use because of the problems cause by so many others. While most gun owners surely know the do's and don't of what they can do with a firearm, the ongoing additions and debates stack up frustrations for people that are likely not the problem. See below for a comparison example. You chose to remove firearms from your home when your child was born. That's your choice and works for your life style. I chose to sell the motorcycle I had for years because it wasn't a means of transportation or fun I had once wanted. I can relate to the frustrations of those who ride, and many are their own problem to their community. I can see similarities with those in the firearm community. The poor decisions of a few impact many. Please understand that your perspective does not make what someone else says "misinformation", simply because you feel you interpret it differently. There is not enough detail in the Second Amendment, because of it's limited verbiage, to split hairs. It is point blank. Every process of buying a gun from a retailer violate this Amendment unless it is simply cash and carry. Trade or exchange for value would align with no infringement. Background checks and required training are all infringements. I'm not getting into "should those things happen"? Perhaps you have a different definition or understanding of how they are using the word infringement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted November 4, 2021 Report Share Posted November 4, 2021 Joe, Thanks for the cordial response, I do appreciate it. Please understand that your perspective does not make what someone else says "misinformation", simply because you feel you interpret it differently. There is not enough detail in the Second Amendment, because of it's limited verbiage, to split hairs. It is point blank. Every process of buying a gun from a retailer violate this Amendment unless it is simply cash and carry. Trade or exchange for value would align with no infringement. Background checks and required training are all infringements. I'm not getting into "should those things happen"? Perhaps you have a different definition or understanding of how they are using the word infringement? Misinformation is misinformation because it is factually untrue. I am not denigrating how you feel it SHOULD be, but you are stating your interpretation and opinion as fact and that is where it becomes problematic. Let's take the statement "The requirement of taking a CCW class is a direct violation of the second amendment". The misinformation is that is is a "direct violation" which it is not. There is no legal precedent to support it is a direct violation, nor has any court ever held it to be so. "Direct Violation" as a term of art means there is an established law or precedent which the requirement goes against and it is a fact that there simply isn't one (and unlikely to be one). What you are really saying is: "I feel/interpret the requirement of a CCW goes against the spirt and context of the second amendment", which as an opinion I understand and respect (but do not agree with). Calling it a direct violation is misinformation. This language is not an accident by the way - the NRA has long spread this misinformation through their propaganda to the point where a lot of people believe it to be a fact instead of wishful thinking, and just assume it's some corruption of the government that causes it to continue to exist, and that's simply not the case. I am not saying you believe that last part, that's just the danger of misinformation. lets discuss: "There is not enough detail in the Second Amendment, because of it's limited verbiage, to split hairs." Anybody who remembers the Clinton impeachment trial will remember there as a section where there was some discussion over the definition and context of one word, so this is also not true. Again, you are stating your opinion as fact and it is not. Courts have discretion to interpret individual words and whole sentences in both their historical and modern context and meaning and in the light of prior precedent and decide which interpretation best suits the specific facts of the case they are overseeing. What you are really saying is "I don't agree with the court's historical treatment of the word 'infringed' and I think it should be read strictly in the modern definition and context". I will admit that there is a lot of merit to this point and it is consistent with the strict scrutiny. However, in order to do that, the court may be faced with overturning their decision in Heller in part of whole, which would wipe out the recognized right states have to enact gun control legislation that passes strict scrutiny. You aren't going to find any one case that explicitly says "infringement means", It is derivative by action. The Heller case is a prime example of that, by saying that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated they are saying "infringed" means only an outright ban, not a restriction (the dissenting opinion does recognize that there will never be a ban on guns under the 2nd amendment). As opinions, where you are self aware that these are opinions and not fact, and that to enact how you think it should be would be a significant departure from how they are currently and have been treated since they were first written, It's fine. It's good to want things and to advocate for changes to the law if you think they aren't serving the public at large as they stand. But.... ...if you think these are "facts" and it's everybody else who has been wrong for over 200 years and there is some corrupt cabal that is secretly out to take away all your guns...then it's starting to look more like Q-anon (ok maybe not that crazy out there) and it's going to be hard to find people to even meet you halfway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted November 4, 2021 Report Share Posted November 4, 2021 What I'm reading here is that some believe the law and legal interpretation and legal precedence determines what is real information and then in-turn notes that opinions are NOT real information and instead are the misinformation. So it all boils down to who interprets what and does their interpretation make things real or bullshit. Some side with the laws and some side with their own raw interpretation of the original founding documents. I wouldn't exactly say that believing the latter means everyone has been wrong of over 200 years. I would say each side seems to think they are right and both are depending on what lens the information is viewed through. Lots of people do more than just meet both sides halfway, many on both sides are all-in on one or the other view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted November 4, 2021 Report Share Posted November 4, 2021 What I'm reading here is that some believe the law and legal interpretation and legal precedence determines what is real information and then in-turn notes that opinions are NOT real information and instead are the misinformation. So it all boils down to who interprets what and does their interpretation make things real or bullshit. Some side with the laws and some side with their own raw interpretation of the original founding documents. I wouldn't exactly say that believing the latter means everyone has been wrong of over 200 years. I would say each side seems to think they are right and both are depending on what lens the information is viewed through. Lots of people do more than just meet both sides halfway, many on both sides are all-in on one or the other view. I will add in here that there are actually way more than two sides and two opinions on this issue, it's really more of a spectrum with a total ban/repeal of 2A on one side and completely unrestricted on the other. Saying every gun transaction should be cash and carry only and every gun restriction is against 2A is unfortunately an extreme position, and like most it relies on a lot of speculative fiction and feelings more so than the actual legal environment to sell it to people. This is also true of the opposite pole - a ban will never happen and a 2A repeal is very very very unlikely. Another unfortunate circumstance is that being a "hot button" issue it is especially susceptible to brinkmanship - both sides benefit from making the voters caught in the middle think their rights or lives are in immediate peril and use the manufactured chaos to garner votes. Before Randy comes in here with his bullshit reductionist phrase of "two wings of the same Bird" we should talk about the NRA which despite being a small organization in size, is hugely influential as a lobbyist group and really goes above and beyond in terms of dishonesty, corruption, fear mongering, and bankrupt moral compass. I mean they really make the oil and gas lobby look like pious clergy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojoe Posted November 4, 2021 Report Share Posted November 4, 2021 Can you legally conceal carry in Ohio without completing the CCW process or being a LEO? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE-O Posted November 4, 2021 Report Share Posted November 4, 2021 I believe this is what joe is trying to clearly point out without writing a damn 16 page novel in response Infringe : act so as to limit or undermine Bear arms : carry firearms Seems like not to much room for debate or a split hair interpretation to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10phone2 Posted November 4, 2021 Report Share Posted November 4, 2021 (edited) yea pretty much. Edited November 5, 2021 by 10phone2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted November 5, 2021 Report Share Posted November 5, 2021 I believe this is what joe is trying to clearly point out without writing a damn 16 page novel in response Infringe : act so as to limit or undermine Bear arms : carry firearms Seems like not to much room for debate or a split hair interpretation to me Can you say with certainty that is how the framers defined it or used it in context? No you can’t, nobody can. You can say that in 2008 the Supreme Court looked at all other prior cases relating to this right and many other similar ones and came in with a different definition. So who is right? Well you are just some dude with no formal legal training and they are the Supreme Court who have devoted their lives to studying and interpreting the law so guess who wins? they do. Experience and expertise matter. You are right, that was simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojoe Posted November 5, 2021 Report Share Posted November 5, 2021 I have to ask the same question from the other side, Kerry. Can you say with certainty that is not how they intended for the meaning to be understood? The only reason I emphasis what I have to so that we see it for what it is. I've not said I'm for, or against the requirement for CCW or the processes of buying a gun. We have to see infringements for what they are. If we are willing to over look them, at what point would we say "Hey, now that is too much"? Now I will add my opinion. If we are going to bend the Second Amendment in today's world, we have to be willing to violate HIPPA. Or, at least cross reference OARRS - Ohio Automated Rx Reporting System, with the process of firearms purchase and CCW process. Is that too far? Now, have your rights been violated? Where is the line? What prescriptions are ok and which ones are red flags? That is a nightmare topic with many levels to debate. The vast majority of events that stimulate people wanting more restrictions for gun owners, come from people with a history of medications for mental health issues. But we can't violate their rights, right? Let's peal these layers back for the sake of discussion before addressing other factors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otis Nice Posted November 5, 2021 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2021 Before Randy comes in here with his bullshit reductionist phrase of "two wings of the same Bird" we should talk about the NRA which despite being a small organization in size, is hugely influential as a lobbyist group and really goes above and beyond in terms of dishonesty, corruption, fear mongering, and bankrupt moral compass. I mean they really make the oil and gas lobby look like pious clergy. Why are you attempting to drag my name through the mud? I have read this entire thing, taking each thing said by all contributors to process, and refrained from saying a damn thing and you STILL gotta try to start shit. ...but it's not wrong. They're both corrupt, they DGAF about you or I, are in it for themselves first, and know that division fuels their fire so...two wings, one bird. :gabe: Sorry you got so triggered (pun intended and I'm proud of it) that you had to try to start shit. As for the NRA, I largely agree. They're a feather on the far right wing. I believe this is what joe is trying to clearly point out without writing a damn 16 page novel in response Infringe : act so as to limit or undermine Bear arms : carry firearms Seems like not to much room for debate or a split hair interpretation to me Don't bring logic into an illogical conversation. How dare you! The vast majority of events that stimulate people wanting more restrictions for gun owners, come from people with a history of medications for mental health issues. But we can't violate their rights, right? Let's peal these layers back for the sake of discussion before addressing other factors. :gtfo: of here with that common sense! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted November 5, 2021 Report Share Posted November 5, 2021 I have to ask the same question from the other side, Kerry. Can you say with certainty that is not how they intended for the meaning to be understood? Right, nobody knows for certain. That said The next best thing is to look at the what notes and letters the founding fathers left behind, plus what other materials exist concerning this issue. The issue wasn't political until the late 1968's when gun control was swept up in the civil rights movement, so there weren't two sides to the political issue for most of the time. Although the 1st national gun control wasn't written until 1934, there were state and local gun control ordinances going back to the founding of this country. Since 1776 to today hundreds of jurists have looked over thousands upon thousands of pages of research and not one has come to the same conclusion as you about the definition of infringement. I get the feeling you don't really know how much work goes into a judge rendering a decision. Most Americans don't and that's a much longer conversation we can have about my issues with education in this country. When a judge renders a decision it is made up of three parts: the verdict, the sentence/outcome, and the opinion. A verdict is the black and white outcome of the case: Guilty/not guilty, etc... and the sentence/outcome is the punishment, fine, or other disposition of the issue. The "opinion" isn't an opinion like you or I have, it's more of a research paper where the judge details out exactly how they reached their conclusion, what sources they relied upon, which ones they didn't rely upon and why, what the context is for their decision. It is a heavily researched thing that usually involves weeks of time and the judge's whole staff (Research Attorney, Clerks, Interns, Assistant, etc). I was an interne for a state court judge and was part of this process, it's extremely well researched, more than most people can fathom and way more than most lay people are willing to undertake. That "opinion" and it's sources is used by other judges as research for their own cases and to render their own decision. Each builds on the precedent set by the other and creates a body of how the law is interpreted. Although it is publicly available, most people don't even know how to begin to research this stuff. Its not like there was nothing to go on, there were materials past judges could research and draw their conclusion, and each decision they made added to the collective materials on how this was treated. Even though there really haven't been as many gun control related cases considering legislation as other areas like say murder there isn't nothing. The only reason I emphasis what I have to so that we see it for what it is. I've not said I'm for, or against the requirement for CCW or the processes of buying a gun. We have to see infringements for what they are. If we are willing to over look them, at what point would we say "Hey, now that is too much"? I honestly don't understand anything you have said here. What does it mean to see infringements for "what they are"? Do you mean "you have to see infringements for how I define the word infringement instead of the way someone who has way more research and and is actually in charge of determining what infringement means in the law"? if so that's nonsense. I'm not saying you shouldn't want to redefine infringement in the law, But just saying it is your way instead of how it actually has been defined by every court that has considered isn't credible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gergwheel1647545492 Posted November 5, 2021 Report Share Posted November 5, 2021 I honestly don't understand anything you have said here. What does it mean to see infringements for "what they are"? Do you mean "you have to see infringements for how I define the word infringement instead of the way someone who has way more research and and is actually in charge of determining what infringement means in the law"? if so that's nonsense. I'm not saying you shouldn't want to redefine infringement in the law, But just saying it is your way instead of how it actually has been defined by every court that has considered isn't credible. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/infringement infringement: An infringement is a violation, a breach, or an unauthorized act. Infringement occurs in various situations. A harm to one’s right is an infringement. A violation of a statute is also an infringement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted November 5, 2021 Report Share Posted November 5, 2021 https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/infringement infringement: An infringement is a violation, a breach, or an unauthorized act. Infringement occurs in various situations. A harm to one’s right is an infringement. A violation of a statute is also an infringement. See this is a good illustration about how lay people get confused about what things mean in the law and how precedent works. This is a definition for "infringe" in the context of intellectual property rights, patent law, copyright law, and trademark law. It is not a definition of how it is used in constitutional law. It's also not a source that a judge would give much credence to since it is not itself citing any prior holding, decision, statutory definition, nor is it from one of the recognized sources of definitions like Black's, Westlaw, Lexis, M-W, etc.... This is a good definition for someone who is just starting to learn about what it means when someone uses or misuses a trademark or copyright but it's not a "the buck stops here" definition in trying to understand a word's usage in a specific constitutional amendment. At best even when it is credible, a dictionary definition is a "secondary authority" so judges will always defer to how a word was interpreted previously in a case before they look it up in a law dictionary. Its this kind of information about source priority in research that lay people don't even begin to consider before they do whatever google "research" to try and get informed on an issue. IT's the value of training and experience that is leading to the "death of expertise". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gergwheel1647545492 Posted November 5, 2021 Report Share Posted November 5, 2021 See this is a good illustration about how lay people get confused about what things mean in the law and how precedent works. This is a definition for "infringe" in the context of intellectual property rights, patent law, copyright law, and trademark law. It is not a definition of how it is used in constitutional law. It's also not a source that a judge would give much credence to since it is not itself citing any prior holding, decision, statutory definition, nor is it from one of the recognized sources of definitions like Black's, Westlaw, Lexis, M-W, etc.... This is a good definition for someone who is just starting to learn about what it means when someone uses or misuses a trademark or copyright but it's not a "the buck stops here" definition in trying to understand a word's usage in a specific constitutional amendment. At best even when it is credible, a dictionary definition is a "secondary authority" so judges will always defer to how a word was interpreted previously in a case before they look it up in a law dictionary. Its this kind of information about source priority in research that lay people don't even begin to consider before they do whatever google "research" to try and get informed on an issue. IT's the value of training and experience that is leading to the "death of expertise". See this is a perfect example of your opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.