Self defense and the RR

Desertdweller wrote:3rdrail,

I can see the logic of your argument. But there is a fatal flaw in it.

What would it mean to have a Constitutional Right to do something, if exercise of that right was subject to prior government approval? We would not be an independent nation if all gun owners in the 1770's had to pass a psychological test administered by King George's government.

The purpose of the Second Amendment was to prevent governmental tyranny. It is not about hunting, target shooting, or gun collecting.

You must know as well as I what would happen if all gun owners were subject to psychological test. Anyone opposed to government policies would be labelled "psychologically impaired" and stripped of their rights. Psyche screeners would be very interested in what organizations the gun owner belonged to, who his friends are, what bumper stickers are on their car. In surrendering our rights, we would get in return a police state.

Les

The government already knows what guns you own. When you go to the store to buy any gun (Flare Guns and BB Guns excluded) you fill out an FFL form and the gun shop calls it in to see if your allowed to have it or not its a basic back ground check with about 20 "yes" or "no" questions asking everything from having issues with depression to criminal back ground and restraining orders that you may have against you they even ask if you hold a dual citizenship, or hold green card. Once they get the ok then they can complete the transaction and you take the gun home. Handguns are a bit different depending some states you have to wait a few hours some 24 hours some a week or more before you can pick it up. In New York the State You can buy a hand gun but you can not take it home right away because the State Police have to test fire them first for there forensics files all this is taken down just in case the weapon is stolen and turns up with all the numbers gowned off. Anyways at the shop You fill out an FFL Form and submit your permit to the shop owner after that the owner gives you a slip with all the info like serial number, caliber, manufacturer and so forth that form must be taken to the county sheriffs office in the county in which you live in and the form given to them they then copy that form and all the info on to your permit and then they give you a green paper that you take back to the gun shop where you then hand that to the shop owner and they then give you the hand gun the green paper in turn gets turned back to the Sheriff after you have picked up the hand gun. The county in which I live in asks that hand gun sales be held up for 24 hours so that the hand gun be test fired by the sheriffs department so that they have all the forensics info that the State Police have as well. I know of no other county's in the State of NY that have such a rule.

If the gun shop gets a NO then they let you know that the transaction can not be completed. The Police will then request that you report to the police station for a few questions where the matter can be taken care of. The only guns that the State and or Federal Government don't know about are the private transactions that don't take place in a store such as with Rifles, shot guns and semi auto machine guns like AR15's and AK47's. In New York State Hand Guns have to be exchanged from one permit holder to another and the police have to know about the transaction before it happens.

NY is one of the states that does require handgun registration. It's been debated to what extend records are available in non-registration states. For example, PA state law forbids the police from maintaining a registry of gun owners. Different states have different laws. New York is stricter as New York has no right to keep and bear arms in it's state constitution whereas PA has a more explicit version in it's state constitution.

Now for some replies to 3rdrail.

On the issue of training. I break from some 2A supporters in that I believe that training should be required. However, training should not be a discriminatory tool. In Maryland, to buy a handgun, you need a training certificate. This training is free to anyone. Chicago on the other hand requires an expensive training class, and there is no where to take it unless you can drive.

One form of training is designed to educate, one form is designed to discriminate.

People already undergo a psych evaluation to buy a gun. My mental health records were checked when I got my CCW and my handgun by PA Instant Check, FBI, Florida State Police and Maryland State Police.

Requiring "psychological evaluation" for a fundamental right is egregious. It's like saying you need to get evaluated before you speak. No. And do you know how many psychiatrists are anti-gun? You'd never in a million years get them to sign off on you. I know several psychs who are anti-gun, and one who isn't, but he still won't sign anyone's form because of the liability on him.

There's no way that one universal truth, such as "anyone has a right to have a gun" can or should be enforced.

Your right. No one who is a criminal, or was adjudicated mentally in-stable, or who is a habitual user of alcohol or controlled substances or any other NICS disqualifier should have a gun.

Other than that, you can't deny someone a fundamental right. If you do, you deny them the ability to protect their very lives. You pave the way for deprivation of other rights.

You have your stories, I have mine but there facts.

Fact: The United States Constitution guarantees me the right to keep and bear arms.

Fact: In 1985 8 states issued concealed handgun permits. Vermont allows carry but has never required a permit. In 2011, 41 states issue handgun permits. No state has ever repealed the law, and most have expanded.

Fact: Since 1988, the crime rate for FL permit holders has been 0.02% and crime can be any violation of the law.

Fact: Non-Shall Issue states have crime rates 11% higher than the national average.

Fact: There are 14,000 CCW holders in Oregon. Only 4 have committed gun crimes.

Fact: There are more Alligator attacks in Florida than crimes committed by CCW holders.

Fact: Public shootings are declining in Shall Issue states.

Fact: In a survey, 66% of police chiefs are pro-ccw.

Fact: New York is a power house of gun control, and accounts for 20% of the nations robberies.

Fact: 20% of US homicides in 2000 occurred in New York, Chicago, Detroit and DC. All of which are power houses of gun control.

These are facts from the FBI UCR and other reliable sources.

I am in total agreement that the criminal justice system is a huge part of the problem. You need to see some real armed citizens, not criminals and armed security, you'd see we aren't as big a threat as you think.

There is certainly a great difference between states as to how this is handled. I haven't worked much in the Northeastern States where the most restrictive gun laws exist. I don't believe I would want to.

From my own experience, the biggest impediment to buying handguns in most Western States is one needs to be a resident of the state where the transaction is made. Even then, there is a work-around available. Anyone holding an FFL can sell a gun to an out-of-state resident, then ship the gun to a FFL dealer in the purchaser's home state. There is a nominal fee for doing this.

Long guns are generally not regulated in this country. And guns can be sold and traded between individuals wthout paperwork or checks. This may not be always legal, but in fact there is no way of controlling it. When I moved to Texas, I wanted to buy a good used lawn mower. I could find none at garage sales, but guns were common items.

The "problem" with tracing transfer of ownership of firearms also involves transfer of gun ownership between family members. A father or grandfather would run into restrictions if he wanted to hand down a handgun to his child or grandchild.

Air guns (BB guns or pellet guns) are restricted by Federal Law from being defined as firearms. But that does not prevent states or localities from restricting ownership of them. It is my understanding that they cannot be possessed in the cities of New York and Chicago. I also read that New Jersey has a law that anyone buying an air gun has to have it delivered to the local police station. The police then get to play with your new gun "to assure themselves it is safe."

I think it is very wrong for the police to do forensic testing on guns purchased by law-abiding citizens. This pre-supposes a presumtion of guilt. Presumably, the police would already have a list of gun buyers and serial numbers. If this isn't the case in PA, so much the better.

The cops I know feel about this the same way I do. Police training these days puts a lot of emphasis on learning constitutional law. Too many bad guys have walked because the police have not followed the letter of the law in the arrest.

Just a couple footnotes are needed here: In addition to air guns, the following are not considered to be firearms under Federal Law. Black powder arms and guns manufactured before 1899. Strangely enough, silencers are considered to be firearms in the US, and require a $200/yr permit to own.
I don't believe any more licenses for fully automatic weapons are being issued. If you owned a machine gun before the licenses were discontinued, you are grandfathered in. South Dakota has the highest per capita ownership of fully automatic weapons. They are virtually unheard of in the commission of crimes there.

Note to Scharnhorst: I hope you now understand where I am coming from. I am not now, nor ever have been, a cowboy. I think the correct Russian word is "Buckaroo".

Les

Greg - Woah there, big guy. Take it easy. I'm not the bad guy here. What I have consistently expressed is being virtually in the dark about civilians having firearms. As I said before, I know of, and have heard here, many arguments which both support and undermine this cause. I have certain leanings, as instinctively I've been physically present during shootings as well as their aftermath and have a deep respect for the damage, seen and unseen, that guns can do, but I'm being perfectly honest when I tell you that I don't know whether I'm for or against. (I do have a question that I have not found an answer to from the pro-gun faction. It is; Since the Federal Government has guaranteed the right of gun ownership, why has no legal challenge via an appeal been successful in overturning those states which demand limited strict criteria in order to be granted a license to carry, including appeals to the Supreme Court involving persons convicted of illegal possesion of firearms who had prior clean records but no license to carry ? A lot of cons doing time on that one. None have ever been sprung on the court's reversal of this issue to my knowledge.)

Now, to lighten things up, I'd like to thank you for offering some good belly laughs not the least of which was-

gprimr1 wrote:The right to a speedy jury is a privilege? Sorry my friend, the Bill of Rights is very clear about that one.

(I'm going to use that one the next time that I am subpoenaed on an old case and want to go home !)
...or, your rallying around Vanessa Mascolino at the Desert Moon Spa and Resort. (The "Spa" is a former rowdy brothel, currently operating as a gay spa. We may find out that "Nessa", a "resident", was arguing about something more than rent money.) hahaha!!!

My mission is done here, folks. I did what I had to do, and saw it through without redemption. I planned each chartered course, and, may I say, not in a shy way....oh, sorry, got carried away.

A word on New Jersey and firearms regulations. NJ DOES consider air guns (BB guns) firearms and requires the firearms permit to purchase one. Ditto with repro muzzle loaders, though I am not sure about original antique firearms. NJ also requires a purchaser of air guns that are pistols to have the additional pistol permit, ditto on repro muzzle loading pistols. I too have been wondering why there have been no suits in Federal Court against those states whose firearms laws are so onerous as to preclude the actual exercise of a protected Constitutional right. If a state creates burdensome obstacles to the exercise of a right, {the Jim Crow provisions (poll tax, literacy tests, closed primaries) come to mind} then the right is negated. I, myself, would like to see such suits but this court has been strongly in favor of states rights and apparently is not disposed to even hear, let alone rule on this matter. As for rail workers and firearm possession I again urge rail employees to seek to have the same federal right as airline pilots to have the right to carry while on the job. That will remedy the remedy the problem of conflicting and arcane state regulations.

In New York you can by black powder Hand guns with out a permit as long as you can show proof that you do not have the means to make the ammo or have any gun powder in your house.

As for the Application process it varies from county to county in general they all start the same and end differently. Applications have to be picked up at the local Sheriffs department its a 2 page app which requires 4 people in good standing to sign it stating that they know you they must provide there name, address and phone number. Neither of these people can be related to you or each other, they also can not be or have worked in law enforcement of any kind, They also must live with in the county in which you live and they can not have any police records. Once this form is filled out the app holder must then take a 4 hour class once complete they get a slip stating that they took the class then the app and the slip must then be taken to the Sheriffs department where it go's to be processed. The Sheriff will send out forms to the 4 people who signed your app asking them info about you once they get these slips back they then go in a file along with the application where they sit till one of the county judges signs and mails your permit to you again this part varies as some judges sign the permits off once a month some take a little longer than that.

I hope this topic doesn't get locked. I see many are entranced in their positions. BTW, as an experienced FFL regulated salesman and can tell you that the only item about the gun on the form is shot gun, long gun or pistol. No model numbers, serial numbers or brand requirement are on the yellow form. The local regulations may require that information. I hold a CCW, carried at work and have never lived in a state requiring a FID by preference.

Maybe we can all agree about something. Why not hire more RR police and beef up the network? These could be part time positions based on need and time of year. The railroad could hire from local departments. A supply of certified patrolmen under contract and have their yards patrolled or respond quickly to a situation where a trainman could request professional assistance to walk the track in a bad area or neighborhood or find them under threat of attack. IMO, the Railroads are shirking their duty to provide a safe working environment for their people now.

Toolmaker,

The railroads could address this problem if they threw enough resources at it. But railroad policemen (known as "special agents" in the industry) are spread so thin they cannot provide adequate coverage. If a crew person is threatened, he is better off calling the local police. Response time would be quicker, and there are more of them.

I once worked a night yard clerk job. We were having trouble with people sneaking into the yard at night and stealing materials and knocking off brakes. The railroad hired a local person to sit in a caboose all night and keep an eye on things (turned out that the watchman was part of the gang that was messing with us).
The railroad also hired a couple of security guards from a local private security firm.

I soon noticed that these two birds spent all night parked in a car across the tracks from the yard office. The only person they were watching was me.
I told my boss about it and he cancelled the contract.

Anyone sitting in a car all night could see the number of cars going into and out of a huge oil and chemical refinery. Most were hazmat.

The contract was cancelled, but the guards kept showing up. They were parked on company property. I decided to confront them.
I told them their services were no longer needed, and asked them to leave. They left, but soon returned.

I called the local police. Five cop cars showed up and surrounded the guards. I joined them. I asked the guards who they were working for: Texaco, Hezballah, Hamas? The guards said they got their orders from their headquarters, and did not know who the client was. I told them not to come back.

One of my fellow workers told me the next day he thought I over reacted. I reminded him the acts of terrorism we hear of are not being committed on Mars. Terrorist organizations are real, and we were leaving ourselves open to an attack. This was in 1995.

Scharnhorst:

How are purchasers of black powder arms supposed to prove they do not have powder or bullets? It is hard to prove you do not have something. Are they to invite the police to search their homes looking for this stuff (another Constitutional Right violated)?

All:

I think this is a good example of government selectively enforcing law. The Civil Rights Act established the superiority of Federal Law over State Law. Yet in matters of gun control, state laws are allowed to deny people rights they are guaranteed by Federal Law.
I think the smaller the political unit, the more responsive it is to citizens' needs. So if citizens of certain states want to have restrictive laws, it is OK with me as long as I have the right to choose where I live. Those subject to restrictive laws have three choices: move to a freer state; lobby their legislators for a change in the law; or bring a test case in Federal Court against the state. But it is their fight, not mine.

Les

Greg - Woah there, big guy. Take it easy. I'm not the bad guy here. What I have consistently expressed is being virtually in the dark about civilians having firearms. As I said before, I know of, and have heard here, many arguments which both support and undermine this cause. I have certain leanings, as instinctively I've been physically present during shootings as well as their aftermath and have a deep respect for the damage, seen and unseen, that guns can do, but I'm being perfectly honest when I tell you that I don't know whether I'm for or against. (I do have a question that I have not found an answer to from the pro-gun faction. It is; Since the Federal Government has guaranteed the right of gun ownership, why has no legal challenge via an appeal been successful in overturning those states which demand limited strict criteria in order to be granted a license to carry, including appeals to the Supreme Court involving persons convicted of illegal possesion of firearms who had prior clean records but no license to carry ? A lot of cons doing time on that one. None have ever been sprung on the court's reversal of this issue to my knowledge.

No disrespect intended. It's actually been very nice having a passionate but civil debate. Most of the time I get called a hate monger, messenger of death, backwards *** retardican (even though I'm a Democrat) so it's nice to talk about it and actually discuss it; although you can see I am passionate so I do bring the facts

I hope I have given you some facts to consider as you think about the subject to balance the negatives you see. I often say when people see violence all around them, it can blur the big picture.

Short Answer: The Supreme Court has not defined what "bear arms" means. It has held that the 2A is an individual right applied to the states, but it has been silent on the issue of carry.

Long Answer:

Until 2008, the 2nd amendment did not apply to individuals. It was considered a "collective right." This is silly. People argued the right guarenteed the national guard the right to have weapons. Who sends an army to battle without weapons? Then Heller vs DC held that the 2A is an individual right, but this did not apply to the states.

In 2010, McDonald vs Chicago held that the 2nd amendment is binding on the states via the 14th amendment and selective incorperation. For the first time, states like MD, NJ, NY, they now had a 2nd amendment right.

One of the most far long cases is Nordyke vs King, regarding Carry in California. He lost when the 9th circuit heard his case, but now he is petitioning to be heard En Banc (by all the judges of the 9th circuit, not a 3 judge panel)

Lawsuits are being filed all over the country now. In NY a federal lawsuit challenged NY's selective permitting process. It was defeated at the District level, but was immediatly appealed to the Circuit as a matter of law. The judge used many precidents were did not hold the 2A to be an individual right, or binding on the state. The judge actually seemed disinterested in the case.

In Maryland, we are waiting on Wollard vs MD. The judge will decide if a subjective, undefined standard known as "Good and Substaintial reason" is legal. Mr. Wollard got a permit when Ehrlich was govenor, and was denied when Omalley was. Same reason. This judge seems very interested in the case and is taking it seriously.

In Chicago, the 7th circuit court of appeals send down a scathing ruling that Chicago's ban on gun ranges was unconsitutional and Chicago's arguements were a joke. They send it back to the district judge who is again trying to buck the will of the circuit and find a way to rule for Chicago. Expect it to go back to the circuit.

The court held in Ezell vs Chicago, Chicago required training at a gun range to own a gun, then banned all gun ranges in Chicago city limits. The 7th circuit held:

"The opinion noted that Chicago could not infringe Second Amendment rights on the grounds that they could be exercised elsewhere, any more than it could infringe the right to freedom of speech on the grounds that citizens could speak elsewhere."

In short, the circuit judges over turned it, and set up some rules on how the district courts should examine it. What was unusual is how direct the judges were with telling off Chicago, and issuing wide instructions to the circuit. It was also unusual because courts don't like to rule on zoning issues. Ezell was also decided 3-0.

In Maryland, a Mr. Williams was arrested for carrying a gun in public. He argued that he had a right to do so, and that since the state makes it so very difficult to get a permit, he did not need one. His case has been sent to the Supreme Court to ask for cert. Mr. Williams was not a criminal, and legally owned the gun, but he could not meet the arbitrary "Good and Sub. reason." Mr. Williams is one of the "cons" your thinking of. He may get his petition granted faster.

There are more cases than that but that's a preview.

There are three main reasons:

1.) Staire Decisis: Judges don't like over turning established law. The idea of the 2A being a fundamental individual right is so new; the judges are waiting for the Supreme Court to address the issue of bearing arms. If the Supreme court holds that Bear is equal to Keep, it will open a lot of flood gates.

2.) Anti-gun judges: These judges don't like personal gun ownership, and are ruling against it using selective arguements and other questionable tactics. They are basing their rulings on pre-Heller decesions and not bothering to think that those rulings were made before Heller. They also use selective parts of Heller that talk about guns in the home. Mr. Heller only asked that the ban on ownership in the home be over turned in DC, he never asked about carry; most likely because 1.) He wanted a narrow question and 2.) As a lawman, he was allowed to carry a gun off duty.

3.) Fear of being over turned: The judges don't want to be over turned; so they are sticking with the case law they have, even though it may not apply, so they rule half heartly and "punt" the issue up to the circuit judges and Supremes.

The biggest win since McDonald has been the Ezell case. It is a slow process. Loosing at the district level is almost certain. What will happen is that some circuits will rule for pro-2A and some anti-2A.

Splits in the Circuits will cause the Supreme Court to hear a case or two and issue some direction on what "bearing arms" really means.

Then we will have some answers, maybe by summer of next year. Courts and civil rights fighting is very difficult and long.

Greg; thanks a lot. I've learned more on these postings than anywhere else.

gprimr1 wrote: I looked at the story about Tommy. I honestly am sorry that he died. I can't tell what your comment meant about the justice system, I think it is offensive he got 30 years in jail.

30 years ? As incredible as it seems, Mohammed did 13 years, tops, was paroled, has been getting into trouble ever since, and recently was arrested again, this time for assaulting officers with a deadly weapon. That's not offensive, that's obscene.

Having read throught the thread, I can honestly say I'm glad I don't live in a country that seem to have so many railway staff threatened with guns and shot at. Off the top of my head the only instance I can think of was the Great Train Robbery (Edit:which doesn't actually appear to have involved guns)and that was nearly 50 years ago and rather different to your usual rail-related violence.
I can't help feeling that the lack of RR police mentioned is a bit of a red herring. Surely for something as serious as gun crime (or even mugging) the local police (of whatever flavor) would still get involved?

Tim,

Thanks for bringing a perspective from the UK. Although a precedent has been set that the civil police are for enforcing laws and not for protecting people, the fact remains that the civil police take the role of community protectors very seriously. Most all marked police vehicles in this country carry the slogan "To protect and serve". One of my close friends, a Deputy Sheriff, was able to stop a shooting at a big box store. The gunman had shot a pharmacist and a nine year-old girl. My friend was just getting out of his car in the store parking lot. He was not in uniform, but was carrying his .45 Colt automatic pistol.

I think the desire to protect innocent people is the primary motivator for people becoming law officers.

Armed railroad security will protect employees if they can, but they are spread very thin. They are concentrated in major freight terminals, where theft of cargo is their primary concern. As far as protecting employees goes, it would be far more efficient to allow the railroaders to arm themselves. As I have said earlier, this is already happening on a de facto basis. The best solution, in my opinion, would be for the railroads to agree to this. If they are afraid of being sued for permitting it, then they should have the armed individuals sign a waiver rendering the company harmless.

The word would quickly get around that the railroaders are apt to be armed, and armed assaults should drop off sharply.

Armed citizens pose a much bigger threat to criminals than do police. There are more of them, they do not wear uniforms, and most will not hesitate to use their weapons if threatened.

I once was running an engine doing switching in an urban yard. I noticed an armed individual lurking about. I called the local police on my cell phone and reported "a big white skinhead with a gun" prowling a black neighborhood. I was told he was an undercover police officer investigating a robbery.

If I see something that looks fishy, I'm reporting it.

Les

Desertdweller wrote:Tim,

Thanks for bringing a perspective from the UK. Although a precedent has been set that the civil police are for enforcing laws and not for protecting people, the fact remains that the civil police take the role of community protectors very seriously. Most all marked police vehicles in this country carry the slogan "To protect and serve". One of my close friends, a Deputy Sheriff, was able to stop a shooting at a big box store. The gunman had shot a pharmacist and a nine year-old girl. My friend was just getting out of his car in the store parking lot. He was not in uniform, but was carrying his .45 Colt automatic pistol.

I think the desire to protect innocent people is the primary motivator for people becoming law officers.

Armed railroad security will protect employees if they can, but they are spread very thin. They are concentrated in major freight terminals, where theft of cargo is their primary concern. As far as protecting employees goes, it would be far more efficient to allow the railroaders to arm themselves. As I have said earlier, this is already happening on a de facto basis. The best solution, in my opinion, would be for the railroads to agree to this. If they are afraid of being sued for permitting it, then they should have the armed individuals sign a waiver rendering the company harmless.

The word would quickly get around that the railroaders are apt to be armed, and armed assaults should drop off sharply.

Armed citizens pose a much bigger threat to criminals than do police. There are more of them, they do not wear uniforms, and most will not hesitate to use their weapons if threatened.

I once was running an engine doing switching in an urban yard. I noticed an armed individual lurking about. I called the local police on my cell phone and reported "a big white skinhead with a gun" prowling a black neighborhood. I was told he was an undercover police officer investigating a robbery.

If I see something that looks fishy, I'm reporting it.

Les

With respect to the railroads' likely concern with respect to liability, by far the greatest concern would be liability to third parties or fellow employees involved in a employye carrying gun-related incident. Waivers signed by employees would only potentially release the railroad from liability to the specific employee who signed the waiver, not to anyone else. The railroad would still be potentially liable to that employee's family, since they had not signed the waiver, to third parties, etc. Moreover, in some if not many states handling of firearms may be considered inherently dangerous and for a third party to recover damages from the railroad, there is a legal concept called "strict liability" which means that even if neither the railroad nor its employees is negligent in handling the firearms, the court would allow damages for injury simply on the basis that the injury occured.

I even wonder if the waiver would cover the employee as if it came to a waiver challenge, it would certainly appear that as a condition of employment, most likely without the employees having the benefit of his own individual counsel, that it would be considered "under duress" and therefore, not binding. $$$$