Should the RKBA be infringed for the following?

[ZombieHorde]

1) Folks taking a Whitehouse tour. They're in the Whitehouse, and the federal government may try to oppress them at any time.

2) People currently incarcerated. Prisons are notoriously violent places, and the prisoners need to protect themselves.

3) Bank customers. They need to protect themselves from potential bank robbers.

4) The people in a courtroom, such as the defendant. A mob of armed anarchists may try to storm the courtroom in order to smash the system, and the more armed defenders, the better.

Seems to me that we all agree the RKBA should be infringed sometimes, we just disagree on the details.

[elleng]

1. The right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, so there is no 'infringing' in your examples.

The Supreme Court found, in Heller v. DC:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Page references are to Heller v. DC, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

[ZombieHorde]

2. What method do you personally think we should use to determine

if a restriction is an infringement?

[elleng]

3. At the moment, read the Heller decision.

I quoted the Syllabus, which is prepared by the Reporter of Decisions at the Supreme Court. It is not itself part of the decision, but summarizes it for the public's brief understanding.

[ZombieHorde]

6. OK. I read the document in the link.

I resubmit the question.

[elleng]

7. The facts of a situation will determine the answer,

and this is what courts do, examine the facts vis a vis the law. There is no blanket answer. Here's the entire decision. Use your judgment.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

[Starboard Tack]

19. Gotta love the "sensitive places" part

I think the street should be at the top of that list.

[Travis_0004]

4. in 3 of the scenarios, somebody else is taking responsibility for your protection.

There is secret service/prision guards/bailiffs to protect you, plus metal detectors to make sure nobody else is carrying, so I see nothing wrong with a no gun policy.

I've worked in a bank, and we saw open carrying quite often. Customers would make large withdraws or deposits, for their business, and it didn't bother me one bit. I'm sure there was also concealed carry as well.

[ZombieHorde]

5. Sure, but what if you need to protect yourself from a tyranical government?

Do you expect them to protect you from themselves?

The prison guards don't seem to do a very good job. Prison violence seems to be common place.

What if the bailiffs are killed first? Then what?

[msongs]

8. the only reason to have a gun is to protect ourself from gun owners nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

11. !

[Starboard Tack]

20. That is not true.

You forgot about hunting, sport shooting and killing oneself. I have heard several people here claim they carry for protection against "thugs", "young guys with big muscles", "goblins" and all the other "bad guys".
Hard to imagine where those "bad guys" get all their guns, isn't it?

[cherokeeprogressive]

21. Calling you out for posting bullshit. A Google search of DU for "young guys with big muscles"

brings up 229 results, many of them duplicated.

You claim to have "heard several people here claim they carry for protections against... young guys with big muscles". Well guess what? According to the Google, the ONLY person who seems to have used those exact words is YOU.

That said, if you can point me to one single post where someone other than you actually CLAIMS they carry a gun for protection against "young guys with big muscles", I'll post a public apology to you in Meta. Until then, I'm calling your post made up bullshit.

[ZombieHorde]

23. "young guys with big muscles"

Aka "hunks."

[Starboard Tack]

25. Nice try. But you only selected one description from my list.

I actually said I have heard several people here claim they carry for protection against "thugs", "young guys with big muscles", "goblins" and all the other "bad guys".
I make no claim that several posters have used each descriptor.

But, if you insist, this is what I was referring to.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=391938&mesg_id=392121
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x392988

[gejohnston]

26. the reference was to

lethal, or close to lethal, fists being propel ed by those muscles. It also referred to thugs using knives, tire chains, ice picks, baseball bats, and other instruments that in the wrong hands can be used to inflict bodily harm or death.

[cherokeeprogressive]

28. Context is everything.

While your post referenced, simply, "young guys with big muscles", you now point me to two posts that explicitly mentioned "criminals" with muscles. Absolutely NONE of the results from the Google search showed you using the word criminal in the posts where you claim to have read "young guys with big muscles" as a reason for carrying for protection.

I would kindly point you to your own words now...

"I have heard several people here claim they carry for protection against "thugs", "young guys with big muscles", "goblins" and all the other "bad guys." (emphasis mine)

Technically, hearing a single person mention each of your italicized terms qualifies for a collective "several". Given that you fail to add criminal in your "young guys with big muscles" changes the context completely. No one ever said that in the context with which you represent it.

Excuse me if I don't feel an apology is warranted.

[Starboard Tack]

30. I never asked for an apology. That was your idea.

You chose one of my descriptors to challenge, now you want to move the goalposts to include "criminal". Well, IRL criminals don't usually announce the fact that they are criminals, in fact it's highly likely you'll spot the big muscles before his criminality.

[ZombieHorde]

22. I have played a lot of D&D, and a nice, heavy mace is all you need for goblins.

Light xbow works well too.

[gejohnston]

27. magic missile or air hammer?

Druid's oak club?

[ZombieHorde]

29. Magic Missile!

But really, the Sleep spell is where it is at.

[Lizzie Poppet]

24. At 5'3", 110lbs, I have to disagree.

Statistically, a violent criminal is most likely to be a young-ish male. Most such persons would be a deadly threat to me with their bare hands if they were so inclined. They don't need a gun.

[sylvi]

9. Most states have no prohibition on carrying a gun in a bank. nt

[sarisataka]

10. Yes, yes, no, yes

In #1 you are in a zone recognized to have exceptional security. Restriction is reasonable- putting lie to the meme guns everywhere...

Situations 2 & 4- the people in question are in the custody of the responsible authority. The courts recognize that as the authority has deprived them of the ability to bear arms, the authority is duty bound and is legally liable for the incarcerated persons safety and security. In contrast members of the public do have the choice to arm themselves which is why courts have deemed police have no duty or liability to protect any individual.

Situation #3- a bank is a public place and is subject to rules the same as a fast food store. As a business owner, management may restrict weapons, as allowed by local ordinance. There is no exceptional security issue as there is in situation 1. There should not be, as pro-control posters have repeated pointed out property, in this case money, is not worth using lethal force.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

12. not all anarchists believe in being armed --

they post on DU. I have read their posts.

[ZombieHorde]

15. I agree, but the ones in my scenerio do, and they use them against court folks. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

16. scenarios sounds dangerously close to fantazing about why there might be a need for guns

tsk. tsk.

[ZombieHorde]

17. I designed all my scenarios with that in mind.

There is always a potential danger, but yet most will agree with those restrictions, except perhaps for the band scenario.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

18. yes, I know. never mind.

[ileus]

13. 1,3,4 no

[iiibbb]

14. Seems to me that we all agree the RKBA should be infringed sometimes, we just disagree on the detail

indeed

1, 2,4 are all highly controlled environments.

It is legal to carry in some banks.

[Jenoch]

31. This is easily one of the silliest threads I have ever read on this site.

[GreenStormCloud]

32. Banks?

My bank does not prohibit me from carrying concealed into the bank. In fact I don't know any banks that do. It is a non-issue.