SU panel focuses on gun control, gun rights

[Doughdaddy]

SU (Shippensburg University) panel focuses on gun control, gun rights

Anyone care to comment on the professors statement that the 2nd A only applies to ones home? What are the laws for CC or OC at an event like this at a state university?? Can we go and carry? Will anyone be able to attend?

Gun control and gun rights will be addressed by a panel of experts at 7 p.m. Wednesday, Feb. 27, in Memorial Auditorium at Shippensburg University.

The panel discussion is free and open to the public. It is sponsored by The Slate, Shippensburg University’s student newspaper.

“We want to educate and inform the students and the community,” said Chelsea Wehking, editor-in-chief of The Slate. “We want the students to connect with the world. We want to educate them and get them involved.

“We did a similar event last semester with the presidential debate, and it was pretty successful. I do feel like we made some sort of an impact.”

The public will have an opportunity to ask questions following the discussion.

Panelists will include Jim Taylor, co-founder and chairman of America’s Political Action Committee; Chad Kimmel, SU professor of sociology; Samantha Cossick, staff writer for the Public Opinion; Bruce Hockersmith, Shippensburg mayor; and Mick Kelly of the Pennsylvania State Police Fire Arms Department.

Moderating the forum will be Steven Lichtman, professor of political science and pre-law advisor at SU. Lichtman said he is expecting “a free ranging discussion that’s going to touch every side of this issue.”

“The problem with trying to figure this out is, what did the framers mean when they wrote the Constitution?” said Lichtman. “Americans are guaranteed by the Second Amendment the right to have guns in their homes for personal defense, and the government cannot take that right away. But constitutional issues are still being developed.”

Those issues include an individual’s right to have a gun outside his home, carrying concealed weapons and owning assault weapons.

Lichtman believes the Supreme Court will “try to answer some of these questions in the next few years.”

Hockersmith said he is looking forward to being part of the panel. He said he views the issue as “gun management” rather than gun control.

“I know whatever is done, either by legislation or developed policy of society, it’s (about) more than just guns,” he said. “Guns have been with us and been used for war and for peace. They’re here; they’re with us. We have to develop a program that will assure as much as possible the safe use of firearms.

“And in no way am I ever in favor of taking away the Second Amendment right. We are assured the right to bear arms, and I think that is something that has kept and will keep the United States free from foreign invasion.”

http://cumberlink.com/news/local/su-...a4bcf887a.html

[jaseman]

SU (Shippensburg University) panel focuses on gun control, gun rights

Anyone care to comment on the professors statement that the 2nd A only applies to ones home?...



http://cumberlink.com/news/local/su-...a4bcf887a.html

OK, can't believe I'm gonna, but I'll bite....

“The problem with trying to figure this out is, what did the framers mean when they wrote the Constitution?” said Lichtman. “Americans are guaranteed by the Second Amendment the right to have guns in their homes for personal defense, and the government cannot take that right away. But constitutional issues are still being developed.”

He doen't specifically state a belief that it only applies to in the home. Though it might be a reasonable assumption that this is his opinion...

But constitutional issues are still being developed.”

Those issues include an individual’s right to have a gun outside his home, carrying concealed weapons and owning assault weapons.

This is the crux of the question he poses, as I see it. What exactly was the intent of the 2A, as the founding fathers intended it?

Was the intent to defend a persons personal home?
Was it to defend the individual themselves from, regardless of location (CC/OC)?
Was it to defend the country from invasion?
Was it to be able to suppress a tyrannical government?


His statement leaves the issues and interpretations up for debate, regarding beyond the home. Since he doesn't specifically state only in the home, I'm unwilling to jump to conclusions on his personal beliefs on the 2a (even if the first statement eludes to it)



Me personally, I believe it was intended to cover ALL of this.

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.

No where in the 2A does it mention how or where, those arms are to be stored, or carried. I believe this was intentional, along with the phrase "shall not be infringed", as to leave as broad an interpretation as possible for future generations.

Just my opinion, which is worth every penny you paid for it....

[Hokkmike]

To words;

1. ivory

2. tower