Mere carry of a weapon RAS? NO! (Here's why!)

[Curmudgeon]

I'd be willing to bet that most of the issues attributed to translation and interpretation are really just personal agendas.

The issue of interpretation is just a diversion or misdirection, i.e., a tactic.

[Dredly]

Originally Posted by Dredly

Carrying a gun = No RAS
printing =No RAS
Being questioned about a gun and either being "shady" or combative = RAS.

Just in case anyone else missed it (and wants to send me some more negative rep, I can take it) I'll say it again.

Being questioned about a gun and either being "shady" or combative = RAS

Either don't talk to them or be polite, being combative is going to do nothing but piss them off and enrage their "Respect my authority" vein , same with being shady or hiding something.

- Not to mention that a LEO can request to see your permit pretty much whenever they want so they already have the option to ASK for your permit and start up that conversation and good luck saying "No" when they ask for it.

[Bruce]

Originally Posted by tlgpa

[...] While I agree they've been writen well, I have to differ that they're simply interpreted. The vocabulary and language used then differs from now. Many people, scholars, and Supreme Court Justices still debate the meanings. Such as the 2nd ammendment. Still highly debated. Is the right to bear arms solely for a well regulated milita? Where does firearms for hunting and home protection fit in? I'm not asking, just rehtorical questions.

I do not think that the American vernacular has changed all that much. Moreover, there are contemporary dictionaries and other writings to compare it to to demonstrate that the vocabulary of the time was not much different than it is now.

I'm with curmudgeon on the "scholars" and "judges" bit. There are the "living and breathing" and the "emanations and penumbras" types who seek to twist and skew the original meaning of the Constitution to support the ideas that A.) the Constitution does not actually mean what it says and B.) it is outdated and meaningless anyway.

I (along with a great number of other reasonable and intelligent people) think that the Constitution is most certainly not "outdated" and that it means *exactly* what it says.

Do some more research. You might want to check out The Heritage Foundation and The Cato Institute.
.

[Bruce]

Originally Posted by Dredly

[...] Being questioned about a gun and either being "shady" or combative = RAS [...]

Please clearly define: "shady".

Please clearly define: "combative".

Legal, 'courtroom use' definitions, please.
.

[lildobe]

Originally Posted by Dredly

Being questioned about a gun and either being "shady" or combative = RAS

Exercising one's 5th amendment rights is NOT RAS of a crime!

It doesn't matter if you do it gracefully or with a bit of asshattery.

[ksig1869]

I had a question though about the interpretation of the word militia. Isnt the definition of a militia something enacted in the case of an emergency, which is not the National Guard since they are funded by the government and supplement the regular army at any time, not just emergency.

So the people must have their own weapons to aide the regular military in an emergency. I know it doesnt say that outright but doesnt that make a little more sense than saying only people in a militia can possess a weapon? Im trying to understand the whole argument by the antis. Tell me if I have it totally backwards.

[Bruce]

Originally Posted by ksig1869

[...] Tell me if I have it totally backwards.

Don't try and figure out the logic this way - you'll only hurt your brain.

You see, it isn't an argument of "logic", as far as they are concerned - it is an argument of "emotion". If you can't *feel* what they feel, the "logic" of their argument evaporates.

I could present the "argument" that the Second Amendment is about the "security of a free state" and, as we all know, the word "state" really means "the people" individually (because the phrase "the people" means "the State" - right?), so... only those individual Americans who choose the freedom of "security" have the Right to keep and bear arms as recognized by the state.

See what I mean? It'll hurt your head, man.
.

[fingers80002]

Ok, I'll play.

What will happen if the "person of interest" asks the LEO, "What is the basis for your RAS?"

[Dredly]

Originally Posted by lildobe

Exercising one's 5th amendment rights is NOT RAS of a crime!

It doesn't matter if you do it gracefully or with a bit of asshattery.

I agree, I didn't say it wasn't. Actually quite the opposite, I specifically said don't say anything or at best be polite. Don't give the LEO ammo to use against you... basically don't give them shit, just don't give them anything!

Shady - "I don't have a gun", "What gun", "I'm just holding it for a friend", "Thats my phone", "Thats my wallet"... basically trying to hide that you are armed when asked or hide your intent.

Combative - "You don't want to see my gun", "My gun is bigger then yours", "You can't handle my gun", vulgarity, slang, being an asshole, or make aggressive moves towards the gun.

LEO's are like the rest of us, if you are lying they are going to know it and they are going to want to know why and if you challenge them they are going to get defensive.

[Dredly]

Originally Posted by fingers80002

Ok, I'll play.

What will happen if the "person of interest" asks the LEO, "What is the basis for your RAS?"

Pretty sure they have to tell you, or you play the "Am I being detained or am I free to go" game.