Wednesday, July 15, 2015

The Limits, Example #2

It was very interesting to see the discussion on the previous post about vaccines. We all come down in different ways on the issues involved.

So here's one near and dear to me. The "right to keep and bear arms". 

This week I had jury duty and so I had to go to the courthouse and much like the airport, was searched as I entered. I was deprived of my right to "keep and bear arms", not only in the courthouse, but on my walk there and back home.

Meanwhile every police officer, deputy, bailiff, etc. were armed. Why am I deprived of my rights when they are not? What makes them more trustworthy than me?

Yet I have to report for jury duty or be held in contempt. I had to submit to search or I could not report for jury duty. I had to travel to the courthouse and I couldn't just leave my gun with the Clerk of Court (although that is not a bad idea). You could argue I chose to submit, because choosing to not submit would have eventually, sooner (if I had not disarmed) or later (if I had not reported for duty) led to men with guns enforcing the rules to their logical end.

Even in other situations, I can be limited by a shop owner who posts a sign saying no guns. I can leave it in the car or choose to shop elsewhere, but what right does anyone have to infringe on my right? Where is that in the social contract?

The public library is posted. If they posted a sign saying "No gays", how would that work out?

I am a persecuted minority.

8 comments:

burkdoggy said...

Next time I'm called to report for jury duty, I'll be sure to argue that my rights are being infringed upon and therefore cannot be impartial.

Probably won't work but the point you make about being disarmed on the way there and back is valid. I think.

Guffaw in AZ said...

AMEN!

Year ago, the last time I was summoned, I was not allowed to possess my sidearm, nor my folding knife, nor my 2" Swiss Army knife.
But, they did allow my keys, with the oversized P38 military can opener attached!!
But, as you said, any fool with a pot-metal badge could waltz right in.

Something is horribly wrong with this system.

gfa

Glen Filthie said...

Your rights were not violated.

Logically, in a court, in the presence of any number of armed law officers - there are no real credible threats to your person that aren't better addressed by a law officer. And I think we can dispense with the argument about jury duty - libertarians are still struggling with the need for speed limits and red lights - they won't be able to handle the civic responsibility of jury duty either!

As for signs up in eateries and malls...? The way I see it, is if you cannot assure me a reasonable degree of safety on your premises, I would carry and to hell with the signs. Or I would avoid your premises altogether. The second amendment isn't about allowing you to carry a gun so much as it is about seeing that you have a means of self defence in the absence of the rule of law.

genericviews said...

My local coourthouse does not allow any phones inside since they all have cameras. Why can't official public proceedings be recorded by the public? And inside the courthouse? Again, lawyers, judges, and deputies are all chatting away on their smartphones.

Like doctor's offices that post: no food or drink in the waiting area. But the receptionist is drinking a large coffee.

Some pigs are more equal than others (Animal Farm reference, not a slur on police).

ASM826 said...

Glen,

And on that walk through town to get to the courthouse?

Glen Filthie said...

Well...this is how I would handle it, if I were King Of North America:

Sure, Mr. Shop/Restaurant/Theatre Owner - you have the right to post your premises as a 'Gun Free Zone'. BUT: As we have seen in the past, gun free zones become shooting galleries for other failed liberal social experiments. Therefore - those establishments and facilities that operate as gun free zones MUST be able to assure the safety of their patrons by the use of some means of lawful and legal lethal force if necessary. Furthermore, such establishments must also provide a secure and efficient gun check for customers who carry as part of their duty or constitutional rights. The establishment WILL be responsible for the safe storage and prompt return of said weapons - or be subject to fines or even closure.

I think there's a certain beauty in that. It would harass and punish idiotic business owners wanting to harass gun owners, it would increase their costs and force them to be more socially responsibe...or they could do the right thing and let their patrons look after their own safety.

Would that work for ya?

genericviews said...

Glen, Since all the "gun free" zones say nothing when police openly carry guns into their businesses, I determine that they aren't really serious about it. So it is safe to ignore them. It's like the EEO bulletin board at a Chinese food restaurant. They are required to have one, so they do. But they are still only going to hire family members.

Kelly Brumbelow said...

Glen Filthie

Your rights were not violated.

Logically, in a court, in the presence of any number of armed law officers - there are no real credible threats to your person that aren't better addressed by a law officer.


If you believe that then you completely fail to understand the 2nd amendment. The threat is not from some outside source necessarily, and in fact, is highly likely that the local constabulary is part of the threat. One can argue that the need for a firearm for defense from the local government means that things have proceeded so far as to make violating the law necessary also, but let me remind you that the Constitution originated at a time not long after we had just had to remove the government.