Soldier charged after toting rifle through N.C. mall

a reply to: Rocker2013

The first half of the 2nd Amendment states its purpose, to provide for the security of a free state through a well regulated militia. The second half is the manner by which it does it: a guarantee of the right of the people to bear arms. The 'right of the people' that exists in the 2nd amendment is necessarily the same 'right of the people' that exists in the 1st and 4th, which are widely accepted as conferring both an individual right and a collective right.

The funny thing is, we actually have a definition of militia in US law, anyway. That definition is inclusive of ALL men ages 17-45 suitable to military service. Of course, this law is actually a means of establishing conscription eligibility, but as the only legal definition of 'militia' we have, it is therefore relevant. So effectively, all able-bodied men ages 17-45 are automatically members of the 'unorganized' militia, and therefore, have a 2A right to bear arms. And as we've seen recently, since you can't discriminate on the basis of age or gender, if this definition of 'militia' is applied to the 2nd amendment, this law actually has to confer 2nd amendment rights on everyone.

Did I mention that the first 'Militia Act', written in 1792 and just months after the ratification of the Bill of Rights and 2A actually required the early members to provide their own firearms and ammunition? It did...which I might add is also difficult without an individual right to bear arms. I'll link that later if you want to read it yourself.

Anyway, all of this is a tangent to the original post. The guy wasn't too bright and like others have said, its my opinion that most of your rights, including 2A, don't extend to private property or interactions between individuals. A private mall can ban firearms on their property if that's what they want to do.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: EternalSolace

Challenge it in court then. Which is being done.

Antics like this do more harm than good, in my opinion, when it comes to advancing the pro-2nd cause. The majority will look at him like a nut job. Just like they do every other person that straps on an AR and walks around with it.

I get the message people like this are trying to send, but it's an idiotic way of sending it and to be so dimwitted as to not even recognize that it's not helping is just plain stupid to me.

IT doesn't seem like he was a nut-job or was looking to make a political point--he just wanted props to make his photos stand out to the casting producer of an action flick--I can see the logic of that, I guess.

He should have carried it cased into the photo studio and carried it cased on the way out of the photo studio then he wouldn't have had a problem.

Looks like he should be a model because he doesn't seem too bright.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Yeah, the article made it appear as though it was his. He was even a good boy and took out the firing pin. I wonder it that makes a difference in the law in his state.

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: roadgravel

If law can dictate that a business serve all customers (civil rights), the law can dictate that businesses can't violate the 2nd amendment.

Because the 2nd amendment is so vague that it is all interpretations. It does not spell out any right other than

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.

If you read that well regulated part it does not seem to give any right beyond having arms. And well regulated means you can regulate the hell out of it. We are just lucky modern courts have been so open in their interpretations of it. It would hard to argue that the founders intended this to protect the right of someone to kit up and carry a weapon into a mall. Even in the wild west guns were banned by businesses and entire towns at time. It is the idiots who have guns who are going shift the courts back to a more strict interpretation down the road. And those same idiots who make the rest of us look bad. Well regulated should mean they start giving IQ tests before letting people have a weapon.

Hold on there chucko. Your statement of " And well regulated means you can regulate the hell out of it" is totally incorrect. The definition of regulated, in that 18th century context literally means "trained". The words in that context can be freely interchanged. Our modern definition of "regulated" of regulations does not mean the same thing as the intended meaning by the founding fathers.

Let us clear that up right now.

In addition, the Constitution does not "grant rights" but protect rights that everyone is inherently born with in the United States.

ETA: A General Dictionary of the English Language (1780)

Here are a few screenshot snippets taken from the 1780 dictionary (see above link), showing clearly that the phrase "well regulated" means "orderly", which is further defined by trained.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Anybody who straps on a vest and a rifle and walks through a mall for no reason beyond "I thought it was okay" is a nut job. Either he's a completely ignorant gun owner, desperately craves attention, or both. For him to sit there and say he made sure he wasn't in violation of anything is plain stupid. It took about 0.8 seconds to learn the mall has a no gun policy.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: NavyDoc

Anybody who straps on a vest and a rifle and walks through a mall for no reason beyond "I thought it was okay" is a nut job. Either he's a completely ignorant gun owner, desperately craves attention, or both. For him to sit there and say he made sure he wasn't in violation of anything is plain stupid. It took about 0.8 seconds to learn the mall has a no gun policy.

I didn't say he wasn't stupid, I just opined that there didn't seem to be any ill intent with his acts.

a reply to: Shamrock6

What are you even talking about? It doesnt matter what anyone thinks is a "good idea". We have what are known as "laws" which dictate when people can be arrested and when they cannot. If this state is an open-carry, the cops were acting illegally, in spite of who got scared.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: NavyDoc

Yeah, the article made it appear as though it was his. He was even a good boy and took out the firing pin. I wonder it that makes a difference in the law in his state.

I would assume that a defense attorney could suggest that removing the firing pin demonstrated he didn't intend any harm.


He's still gonna get "loved tenderly" by his chain of command regardless what the civil authorities do.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Since it is very hard from any distance to tell that a firing pins is not in that rifle, I suspect it is a useless argument. Police can shot someone with a realistic toy gun.

In my state there is nothing about loaded / unloaded. A gun is a gun, loaded or not. How long does it take to load a magazine in a hand gun and chamber a round.

a reply to: Krakatoa

There's another problem with the 'militia' argument as well. A 'well-regulated militia' was effectively established in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the authority to arm, organize and discipline the militia and delegating the naming of officers and training to the states. That is, of course, a serious problem for the collectivist-only interpretation, as if their view is correct, 2A is entirely redundant and unnecessary.

a reply to: Urantia1111

Read it again. Slowly. It'll make sense.

The mall prohibits carrying firearms. And the way the LAW (thank you for pointing out we have laws; I had no idea) is worded is that carrying a firearm into an establishment that has signs posted prohibiting it is...not permissible.

The NC gun laws aren't well written, but the general rule is that unless it's specifically prohibited, it's legal to carry. Key phrase: specifically prohibited.

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: Krakatoa

There's another problem with the 'militia' argument as well. A 'well-regulated militia' was effectively established in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the authority to arm, organize and discipline the militia and delegating the naming of officers and training to the states. That is, of course, a serious problem for the collectivist-only interpretation, as if their view is correct, 2A is entirely redundant and unnecessary.

Yes, then along came an amendment...yes, the 2nd amendment. See, it amends the formal doctrine and therefore clarifies and/or supersedes what came before. The clarification being that the Congress now was no longer the sole provider of arms to, or responsible for, the training of militia, formalizing the long practiced groups (i.e. pre-revolution) what was known then as "Training Bands". A band of men, who have the right to bear their own own arms (arms mean guns and powder/ammunition) that train themselves to defend the locality. In order to do that, they need the protected right to keep those personal arms (again, arms = guns and ammunition). At that time, they just fought and died to separate themselves from a government that did try to seize their arms (see the Battles of Lexington and Concord). They did NOT want to step back to allowing another government, even their own, to make those decisions for them. The act of the British regulars attempting to seize the arms was very fresh in their minds, and they wanted clarification in that document to allow them to keep those arms to avoid yet another overbearing government the possibility to repeating that act here at home.


Is that any clearer for you to understand? That is not a jab or snarky remark, I do sincerely want to make sure you understand the difference and true meaning behind that amendment. If those who wish to suppress or remove the protected right the 2nd Amendment affords U.S. citizens, there is a very valid and legal process to do that by repealing the amendment.

a reply to: Krakatoa

No, I don't disagree with you at all. That's the purpose of it. I think you misunderstood my point, which was that the counter-argument, that 2A refers only to a collective right, is nonsense, because there was no need for a 2nd Amendment when the original Constitution already provided for that. The only logical conclusion is that 2A was added as a means of protecting the individual right to bear arms as well.

originally posted by: NavyDoc


Looks like he should be a model because he doesn't seem too bright.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

I didn't say he wasn't stupid, I just opined that there didn't seem to be any ill intent with his acts.

No, you didn't explicitly say that, but you sure did imply it...

I reckon he was quite stupid, naiive and got what he deserved.

a reply to: vor78

Perhaps I misunderstood when you stated, " 2A is entirely redundant and unnecessary"? Even in the context of the sentence, it still seemed to be you stating that tidbit. Am I mistaken?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Well that's pretty ignorant but at least you feel better I guess.

I'd feel better if the laws were applied equally to everyone. But I guess it is kind of ignorant to expect overseers to be required to follow the same rules as the rest of the slaves. That's no way to run a plantation.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Let me clarify. I'm saying that the collectivist argument that 2A only applies to 'well-regulated militias' seems to fall flat on its face given that Article 1 Section 8 already provided for the organizing, arming, disciplining and training of the militia. Its a major, obvious hole in their argument, because 2A serves little to no purpose if they are correct.

We can therefore conclude that their argument isn't correct, and that 2A doesn't refer to a right of 'well-regulated militias' exclusively. Rather, it is also inclusive of an individual 'right of the people' to keep and bear arms as well.

a reply to: vor78

Thanks for clarifying your previous post. I was confused. Apologies for misunderstanding your intent.