ldsfaqs wrote:Darth J wrote:I wonder what the legal standard is for a Terry stop. Obviously, a police officer could not reasonably articulate a suspicion that if someone has a firearm in plain view, he or she might have a round in the chamber.
A Terry stop is a brief detention of a person by police on
reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest.
I'm not sure I understand your second statement, but just to mention, that someone engaging in a lawful activity such as driving a car doesn't automatically assuming they are "hiding" something in their car. There must be reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Likewise, someone carrying a gun doesn't automatically mean the police have the right to search your gun to see if you have a bullet in the chamber, to "see" if you might be breaking the law. That's directly against the 4th Amendment.
Pretty sure you can reasonably articulate a suspicion of having a round in the chamber if a person is openly carrying. You are just making a blanket statement that a
Terry stop of a person openly carrying is per se unreasonable. That's unlikely to get very far if you are trying to suppress evidence. Never mind that you're not acknowledging that a person openly carrying a firearm has a lesser expectation of privacy than a person (lawfully) carrying a concealed firearm.
This reminds me of another article I read today in which "Mens Rea" is going and has been gone to the way side. People are making laws or making up offenses "criminalizing" activities for which there is no actual criminal intent or action, things like carrying a gun, filming police, having a magazine in a gun or even a round in a gun, and many more I'm not recalling at the moment.
Yeah, well, all I can say is it's too bad that there are all these lawyers who have never read the Constitution who are trying to destroy our rights by challenging these kinds of laws, and so many unelected tyrants in black robes who are willing to say statutes like that violate due process.
Criminal Law was supposed to be for things that were actually "criminal" (Mens Rea), i.e. something that did harm in some way to others society, etc. Man I'm glad to have been reminded of this important principle. Intrinsically I knew and could explain what was wrong with certain activities, but Mens Rea is to the point legal precedent, the basis of law itself.
Pretty sure you're confusing actus reus with mens rea.
ldsfaqs, as I believe that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, I would love to see you make the further case that you have a constitutional right to openly carry a firearm with a full magazine. Be sure to explain that the state would have no compelling interests to restrict this asserted right.
I believe I just made it, "Mens Rea".....
The state of mind for a given crime has absolutely nothing to do with the extent of the rights protected by the Second Amendment.
However, I'm not "necessarily" against this sort of law, but it's still really a feel good law, having no effect on anything, thus I'm ultimately not for it. Further, in "certain" actual real life situations, the time it takes to load your gun could mean life or death for you or someone else.
So everyone should always have a gun in their hand, with the safety off and a round in the chamber, when walking around in public.
I see no compelling interest because as I've said, by what "studies" do they make the law in the first place? How does it actually make people safer? Entirely negligible I would say. In the spirit of Mens Rea and just reason I would be against it, but as a reasonable compromise, I wouldn't be against it for citizens, which is likely how Reagan thought about the issue.
Why not say in the spirit of res ipsa loquitur, or the spirit of nunc pro tunc, while you're at it?
Besides being very confused about what mens rea is, you also appear not to understand the difference between whether the government has the power to enact a given law, and whether as a political value judgment it should enact a given law.
But, that's not even the argument anymore.... California has now completely banned Open Carry which is blatantly against the Human Civil Right to self defense without undue burden by the state, and the Constitution.
That's some more of that begging the question thing. See, "it violates the Second Amendment because there is a basic human right to openly carry a firearm in public with a round in the chamber" isn't really explaining how you determined that this right exists. "What is the undue burden" is the question you are begging.
I mean, liberals are a funny animal..... For people that want to "give rights" to every pet group or person under the sun, they sure like to take away rights if it fits their paradigm. Conservatives aren't even wanting to take away Gay rights, we are simply asking them to be tolerant as they expect from us, showing a little respect and fairness and create THEIR Own institution, words and definition for their type of union. That's not asking too much.
I had two children with my former wife. Dallin H. Oaks has no children with his current wife, and never will. Why can't Dallin H. Oaks show a little respect for my marriage and create his own institution, words, and definition for his geriatric, childless marriage of convenience that involves nothing but companionship?
But BANS are asking too much. And anyone logically consistent and not using hypocrisy and double standards should agree.
A ban on open carry is not a ban on firearms. You still haven't explained how you determined that the Second Amendment is that extensive. And anyway, what if California made it a ballot initiative, and the majority of voters decided to take away your right to openly carry? Then you would be okay with it, wouldn't you?