“Open Carry” state gun laws are explained
here from The Trace with this Headline from 2016
and is reposted here based on this NBC story from Lansing, MI – as the photos above show:
“What
You Need to Know About Open Carry in America”
It's perfectly legal in most
states to show up at a protest with a loaded assault-style weapon (see images
above).
What does “Open Carry” mean: Many people don’t know what UNCONCEALED GUN
LAWS MEAN? That phrase translates into “open carry” where is not illegal in
many states. In Ohio for example, it is perfectly legal for anyone over
the age of 21 without a history of mental illness, drug addiction, or a felony
conviction to carry a firearm in public and no permit is needed as long as the
gun is not concealed (ergo: Carried and seen openly).
My longtime question remains: Why? For what purpose other than to show arrogance and say the constitution says I can carry a gun anywhere, anytime, and for any reason because it’s: “My right to bear arms and it shall not be infringed.”
But does that mean that which we see today like the images above and many more like them? If so, what does it say about American society today? A lot, I also have to say.
Don’t get me wrong I am pro-gun, but with
some common sense – “open carry” is NOT in my strong view common sense by any
stretch of the imagination.
The other half of this gun argument is “Stand your ground laws” here from FindLaw and the following: These laws allow people to defend themselves when threatened, but the latitude that they have to do so varies from state to state.
Many states
have enacted so-called stand your ground laws that
remove any duty to retreat before using force in self-defense. Florida passed
the first such law in 2005. Some states have self-defense laws that are similar
to stand your ground but with one key difference.
While they also remove any duty
to retreat, these laws apply to specific locations such as one's home or place
of work and are often referred to as castle doctrine or defense
of habitation laws. Most U.S. states have castle doctrine laws.
Types of Self-Defense Laws: Although some states use a blend of
doctrines, self-defense laws generally fall into the following three
categories:
1. Stand
Your Ground: No duty to retreat from the situation before resorting to
deadly force; not limited to your home, place of work, etc.
2. Castle
Doctrine: No duty to retreat before using deadly force if you are
in your home or yard (some states include a place of work and occupied
vehicles).
3. Duty to
Retreat: Duty to retreat from a threatening situation if you can do so with
complete safety.
Stand Your Ground States: It's important to understand that even states that have stand your ground laws still have certain restrictions when it comes to using force in self-defense. For example, they may require that the threat of perceived harm is objectively reasonable and that the force used be proportional to the threat.
Stand your ground laws may also require that the
person using self-defense be at the location lawfully (no trespassing, for
example) and not be the initial aggressor in the altercation.
Twenty-five states that have stand your
ground laws:
Note: Some states have adopted stand your ground-like
doctrines through judicial interpretation of their self-defense laws, but
they're not included on this list.
States That Impose a Duty to Retreat: On the other end of the legal
spectrum, some states impose a duty to retreat. A duty to retreat generally
means that you can't resort to deadly force in self-defense if you can safely
avoid the risk of harm or death (by walking away, for example).
If that's not an option, say if
you were cornered or pinned down and facing serious harm or death, then you
would be authorized to use deadly force in self-defense. It's important to note
that, even in duty-to-retreat states, there's no duty to retreat from an intruder
in your home.
My 2 Cents: Not much to add to this except to say as we see those images more and more across our deeply divided and now more chaotic nation the question is why so heavily armed and in public a the images show? Afraid of what, who, and why?
Your freedom is no better or higher level than anyone else’s…
and having an AR-15 slung over your shoulder against a peaceful demonstrator is
NOT justice or anything close to being legal or right by any standard in my
view except for that “open carry” person saying my gun over your rights – now get
lost.
Thanks USSC – but I ask this in closing: “Do you allow open carry in
your building during your sessions and if not, then why not?”
This from your building rules – REGULATION THREE:
Except as authorized by the Marshal, it shall be unlawful for any person, within the Supreme Court Building or upon the Supreme Court grounds, to carry or have readily available to the person, any: “firearm,” as that term is defined by 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(3); “explosive or incendiary device,” as those terms are defined by 18 U.S.C. §§844(j) and 232(5); “dangerous weapon,” as that term is defined in 40 U.S.C. §5104(a)(2) or District of Columbia Code §§10–503.26(3) and 22–4514; or other substance, material, or other item that may pose a danger to Court property or the safety of the Justices, Court employees, guests, or the general public.
Officers of the Supreme
Court police shall have the authority to deny entry to, or expel from the
Supreme Court Building or grounds, any person whose presence would violate
subsection (A).
This regulation is
promulgated pursuant to 40 U.S.C. §§6102 and 6121. Any person failing to comply
with this regulation, including a person who fails to comply with a valid order
from a Supreme Court police officer under subsection (B), shall be prosecuted
under 40 U.S.C. §6137. (Approved and Effective September 23, 1994 (Amended
September 6, 2002 and August 1, 2016).
Hypocritical does come to
mind, BTW don’t cha’ think?
Thanks for stopping by.
No comments:
Post a Comment