Weapons

[100-1/2]

AvBug, Even a retard can read. But what exactly is your level of comprehension?

You cannot rely solely upon the simple statement which comprises the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. You must consider the COMPLETE CONTEXT of the Time and Climate the Articles were ratified:

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html

In case you are overwhelmed, here are some excerpts you should be aware of:

"(though the US Code does still recognize the unorganized militia as an entity, and state laws vary on the subject [10 USC 311])."

"Perhaps in the 1780's, the rise of a tyrant to a leadership position in the U.S. was a cause for concern."

"Documentary history
It is often useful to not only try to interpret what the words of a part of the Constitution mean today, but also to see what they meant in the past. Proponents of the Original Intent method of interpretation always use the original meaning when looking at the Constitution. But even those who do not adhere to Original Intent still find the documentary history to be useful.

What follows are mentions of the right to bear arms in the documents leading up to the codification of the 2nd Amendment. Most are referenced on this site or others. Those that are not are transcribed from the publication The Bill of Rights (National Archives and Records Administration, 1980).

From the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776): That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state...

From the Vermont Constitution (1777): That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State...

From the Articles of Confederation (1781): ...every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

From the New Hampshire Ratification Document (1788): Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.

From the Virginia Ratification Document (1788): That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state... That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.

From the New York Ratification Document (1788): That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.

From Madison's Introduction of the Bill of Rights (1789): The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

From the Report of the House Committee of Eleven (1789): A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

From the amendments as passed by the House (1789): A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

From the amendments as passed by the Senate (1789): 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.

From the Rhode Island Ratification Document (1790): That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state..."

100-1/2

 

[avbug]

The time and climate of the signing of the Declaration, the ratification of the Constitution, and the formation of the ammendments thereto is irrelevant.

What is relevant is it's current standing as interpreted by the courts through time to this current day. The Documents were intended as living documents, subject to revisitation and interpretation. What you think the law should have read in 1872 is really quite meaningless in light of what it's interpreted to mean today.

This is 2009, by the way. You've some catching up to do.

You won't be contributing to the thread, then? You've failed again to do so. As you may or may not recall, the thread regards the carriage of firearms by crewmembers acting under 14 CFR Part 135. Are you able to address this topic?

 

[stupidpilot]

The Documents were intended as living documents, subject to revisitation and interpretation.What you think the law should have read in 1872 is really quite meaningless in light of what it's interpreted to mean today.

This is 2009, by the way. You've some catching up to do.

As usual you think you are the complete authority on everything. There are a few people on the SCOTUS that would take issue on your interpretation of the Constitution and its amendments. I think I'll trust a judge on the court's interpretation before I trust yours.

 

[100-1/2]

Therein lies your idiocracy!

It is NOT up to the courts to Interpret the Law. They are to Enforce and uphold the Rule of Law!

There are only 3 branches of government written into the constitution:

1: EXECUTIVE - Declarers of the law (Law Signer)
2: LEGISLATIVE - Interpreters of the law (Law Maker)
3: JUDICIAL - Enforcers of the law (Law Enforcer)

When rogue non-elected judges deviate with personal agendae beyond what is written into law and presented in the courtroom to gather their own evidence through personal discovery and then issue orders and opinions outside of the scope of Laws whether they were written 200 years or 200 days ago, they initiate a fourth and unconstitutional branch of government as you say, 'Interpreter'. I say Bench Legislators, because those decisions, orders and opinions provide the precedence needed for an idiot like you to justify a perceived "political climate change" to tell the rest of us what is "mainstream".

As for contributing to the original thread, I believe you contributed to the first deviation way back at page 6. Tired of reading your 7,000 posts of drivel, I could no longer sit on my hands hearing of all the gun safes full of all the daisy pellet guns you own.

Why so do you feel the need to qualify your statements by inflating your stature as if to support some feined position of knowledge or experience.

The easiest way to deduce a liar or a fraud is when their statements begin with:

"The truth is..."
"Let us be clear..."
"Don't misunderstand me..."


As for my contribution to this thread; Many states' law has specific requirements to carrying a firearm in a vehicle or vessel. I know of none that cite specific provision for carriage aboard an aircraft. However, those states' laws often further define 'vehicle' and 'vessel' in other sections of the law to include aircraft.

Many state carriage is legal when the weapon is locked separate from the ammunition and/or the unloaded weapon is prominently displayed on the dashboard of the 'vehicle'. How one would properly adhere to this while insure safety of flight is not compromised by the proximity of a weapon to a wet compass often located on the dash or frame of the windscreen or that ammunition is locked securely within the 'trunk' of a vehicle are challenges to compliance for the varying definition from state to state.

I don't buy the intended airport and diversion theory, but would be hard pressed to be convicted of a crime if I prove reasonable measures were taken to comply with the local law once discovered.

Then again, the fourth branch of government is quickly organizing that I would fear the most politically charged climate would seek to make an example of my misfortune to gain traction for their liberal agenda.

When you obtained your CCW, it was issued with ample disclaimer of the carriers' responsibility to adhere to all local and state ordinance, with regard to reciprocity, courts, airports, schools, bars, police stations, churches and other defined public locations. A State Trooper friend of mine in one state said (and it is happening more frequent with every dumba$$ that goes postal somewhere); even with a CCW, and you are reaching for peanut butter off the top shelf at the grocery store; your clothing is a little form fitting and you 'print' or your coat becomes a little too short to cover your holstered weapon; and someone sees you are carrying, they can report you for 'brandishing' a weapon. Libs are putting these laws on the books everywhere, so they can strike fear of prosecution and deter CCW to minuscule demands and ultimately take our guns away.

There, avbug, does that work for you? Kind of funny, but I think you would have to add up several moderators' posts to equal the amount of pecking you do on your kb? 7k posts and counting! You go Boy/Girl (Politically correct, no?).

100-1/2

 

[avbug]

It is NOT up to the courts to Interpret the Law.

We may safely discount anything further you have to say on the subject, owing to the inaccuracy and ignorance of the above quoted statement.

You might wish to avail yourself of an opportunity to read A "Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts And The Law," by Antonin Scalia.

Judge Richard Posner (7th Circuit US Court of Appeals, Chicago) wrote:

The framers of a constitution who want to make it a charter of liberties and not just a set of constitutive rules face a difficult choice. They can write specific provisions and thereby doom their work to rapid obsolescence, or they can write general provisions, thereby allowing substantial discretion to the authoritative interpreters, who in our system are the judges. The U.S. Constitution is a mixture of specific and general provisions. Many of the specific provisions have stood the test of time well or have been amended without much fuss. This is especially true of the rules establishing the structure and procedures of Congress. Most of the specific provisions creating rights, however, have fared poorly. Some have proved irksomely anachronistic-for example, the right conferred by the Seventh Amendment to a jury trial in federal in all cases at law if the stakes exceed $20. Others have become dangerously anachronistic, such as the right to bear arms. Some have turned topsy-turvy, such as the provision for indictment by grand jury. The grand jury has become an instrument of prosecutorial investigation on, rather than being the protection for the criminal suspect that the framers of the Bill of Rights expected it to be. If the Bill of Rights had consisted entirely of specific provisions, it would no longer be a significant constraint on the behavior of government officials.

Many provisions of the Constitution, however, are drafted in general terms. This creates flexibility in the face of unforeseen changes, but it creates the possibility of alternative interpretations, and this possibility is an embarrassment for a theory of judicial legitimacy that denies judges have any right to exercise discretion. A choice among semantically plausible interpretations of a text, in circumstances remote from those contemplated by its drafters, requires the exercise of discretion and the weighing of consequences. Reading is not a form of deduction; understanding requires a consideration of consequences. If I say, "I'll eat my hat," one reason why my listeners will "decode" the meaning of this statement in nonliteral fashion is that I couldn't eat a hat if I tried. The broader principle, which applies to the Constitution as much as to a spoken utterance, is that if one possible interpretation of an ambiguous statement would entail absurd or terrible results, that is a good reason to reject it.

Even the decision to read the Constitution narrowly, and thereby to "restrain" judicial interpretation, is not a decision that can be read directly from the text. The Constitution does not say, "Read me broadly," or, "Read me narrowly." The decision to do one or the other must be made as a matter of political theory and will depend on such things as one's view of the springs of judicial legitimacy and the relative competence of courts and legislatures in dealing with particular types of issue.

While you may have your personal opinions on the interpretation of legislation, to include the United States Constitution proper and the ammendments thereto, your opinion holds no weight or valuein the face of current judicial constitutional interpretation. You may not like it, but the law stands as it is until you or someone else elects to expend the effort and cost of changing it.

You think the law is illegal; you have no right to violate the law whether you think it's illegal or not. Your narrow views regarding the original issue of the US Constitution, and quotations which are outdated and do not represent current law and the application thereof, mean nothing. What is meaningful is the current application of the law, to which both you and I are subject. Beyond that you can flap your lips in the wind until you're blue in the face or numb, and it will change nothing.

So far as the purpose of the courts, in particular the Supreme Court, interpretation is foremost and solemn duty. The courts do not enforce. Law enforcement exists to enforce the decisions, orders, and interpretations of the courts.

The US Constitution's 8th ammendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, but is silent in a definition thereof. In 2005, the Court addressed this topic and interpreted it with respect to the execution of minors under the age of 18, in Roper V. Simmons.

The US Constitution's 1st ammendment protects free speech, but is silent on the definition thereof. In 1989, the Court addressed this topic and interpreted it with respect to burning the Flag of The United States of America, in Texas V. Johnson. That same year, the 1st Ammendment was also addressed in a case involving nude dancing in Barnes v. Glen Theatre. In the first example, the court upheld burning of the flag as protected under the 1st ammendment, but rejected nude dancing as protected by freedom of expression, in the second case.

The US Constitution's 1st ammendment grants freedom of religious expression, but doesn't define or interpret what this means. Can one sacrifice young girls on a stone alter under this ammendment? Smoke marajuana? Oppress non-believers? The Constitution doesn't say. The US Supreme Court does say, however, in Employment Division v. Smith, 1990...with respect to the use and consumption of peyote as a function of freedom of religion.

You state that the Judiciary was established to enforce the law, but nowhere in the US Constitution is this given. The judiciary is there to judge, to weigh controversy, and to render a judgement, a decision, and an interpretation of the law applicable thereto. The purpose of the judiciary, then, is to interpret the law and it's application to the people. You'll find it written in Article 3 of the Constitution, should you take the trouble. Should you not take the trouble, of course, it's still there.

It was Alexander Hamilton who wrote:

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

As you have failed once more to address the topic at hand of crewmembers carrying weapons under 14 CFR Part 135, and as your views are so deeply flawed as to represent little more than a non-credible annoyance, you too are relegated to the ignore list.

 

[brokeflyer]

avbug you need to step away from the PC and go to a bar somewhere......anywhere.

 

[stupidpilot]

avbug you need to step away from the PC and go to a bar somewhere......anywhere.

He...he...he....

 

[avbug]

I don't drink, brokeflyer, and you too appear unable to answer the topic of the thread.

 

[stupidpilot]

No wonder you're such a tighta$$!

 

[brokeflyer]

I don't drink, brokeflyer, and you too appear unable to answer the topic of the thread.

ok, if the cert holder authorizes you to carry a weapon on the plane then you can do it. If you leave the country then you need to abide by that country's regulations concerning weapons.

anything else you wanna know smarta$$?

 

[100-1/2]

It is amazing how un-elected officials can write books and opinions to justify their agenda as I HAVE SAID THEY NOW DO, and through your desperate need to opine with some authority granted you by some supreme agency whose existence can "officially" neither be confirmed or denied, you regurgitate that crap, polish it and affix it to your chest with the rest of your inflated ego metals?

What you have quoted and referenced are exactly that, "Quotes". From book writers and agenda pushers issuing memorandum from the bench. Period. Thus proving my point if you cared to actually read what I posted rather than discharging your assumptive attempt to discredit the legitimacy
of what our founding fathers held dear and envisioned for this once great country.

Reference an excerpt from a document or manifest of one of these great men of our time supporting your koolaid dispersals and I will be the first to offer you a real drink. Virgin of course!

I think you need a job. WalMart loves retards and geriatrics to man their front doors, handing out smiley stickers to the kiddies and frisking gheto-strollers. Might drop a resume by. They could use a real go-getter like yourself to keep the peace!

riddence,
100-1/2

 

[avbug]

ok, if the cert holder authorizes you to carry a weapon on the plane then you can do it. If you leave the country then you need to abide by that country's regulations concerning weapons.

Hardly a revelation or a contribution to the topic, as it's exactly what I've stated from the outset...and is old news at this point in the thread.

Not only must you abide the regulations of any foreign country, but of any jurisdiction through which you pass or where you land, in this country. Also my correct assertion from the outset.

anything else you wanna know smarta$$?

Frankly, yes. Are you able to contribute to the thread in any meaningful way? Thus far you've failed. Are you able to do so without name calling? This may require a higher level of maturity than you have to offer at this time. Perhaps failure suits you.

 

[brokeflyer]

dude, it is you that bring this on. You have the worst attitude that I've ever seen. I'd love to get you in the right seat. I could fix your problems for free.

Just relax and don't be a such a jerk all the time. You'll be amazed at how well people will get along with you.

have a nice day.

 

[brokeflyer]

It is amazing how un-elected officials can write books and opinions to justify their agenda as I HAVE SAID THEY NOW DO, and through your desperate need to opine with some authority granted you by some supreme agency whose existence can "officially" neither be confirmed or denied, you regurgitate that crap, polish it and affix it to your chest with the rest of your inflated ego metals?

What you have quoted and referenced are exactly that, "Quotes". From book writers and agenda pushers issuing memorandum from the bench. Period. Thus proving my point if you cared to actually read what I posted rather than discharging your assumptive attempt to discredit the legitimacy
of what our founding fathers held dear and envisioned for this once great country.

Reference an excerpt from a document or manifest of one of these great men of our time supporting your koolaid dispersals and I will be the first to offer you a real drink. Virgin of course!

I think you need a job. WalMart loves retards and geriatrics to man their front doors, handing out smiley stickers to the kiddies and frisking gheto-strollers. Might drop a resume by. They could use a real go-getter like yourself to keep the peace!

riddence,
100-1/2

lolololol

 

[avbug]

dude, it is you that bring this on.

I think that statement says it all. Clearly anything you think you have to say further on this subject, or any other, may be safely discounted.

When you grow up a little, perhaps after you get past junior high school and develop some maturity (and learn to speak English), we can have a meaningful conversation. From your posts, that may be quite some time away. In the meantime, as your credibility is rather lacking, best of luck with your future. Remember that your homework is important, stay away from drugs, and stay in school.

Have you given any thought to becoming a pilot when you grow up? If so, don't give up. You'll really need to bear down on your English, and keep after your schoolwork.

It's a shame you have been unable to contribute to the thread, but don't let these multiple failures get you down. Keep trying, and you'll succeed one day.