“going armed to the terror of the public”

[Archigeek]

“going armed to the terror of the public” is a very old concept that has lead to an up tick in the arrest of gun carriers at protests. Fascinating.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/10/protests_might_be_on_place_you_can_t_carry_guns.ht ml

[Gelston]

I think this'll get dropped at the first Federal court it hits.

[Mogonis]

Ooo, Archigeek posted a thread! Let's see what's going on.

https://i.imgur.com/XujHL.gif

[Archigeek]

I think this'll get dropped at the first Federal court it hits.

It's a law that's been around longer than most laws in this country, so I'm guessing there's some case law out there. It will be interesting to see what happens. How do you parse the difference between "going armed to the terror of the public" and exercising your constitutional right to be a part of a well organized militia?

[Tgo01]

Dixon wanted to be prepared to defend himself and others from the anticipated swarm of newly emboldened white supremacists said to be descending on his North Carolina city.

I'll give Democrats this much; they sure know how to whip up their supporters into a frenzy better than any other political group in the history of the world.

"White supremacists" have been marching for decades now and no one gave a shit. Suddenly everyone and their dog cares about these marches and feel the need to carry automatic-semi-automatic weapons to "defend" themselves from the marchers.

[Androidpk]

I'll give Democrats this much; they sure know how to whip up their supporters into a frenzy better than any other political group in the history of the world.

Says the Trump fanboy.

[Tgo01]

Says the Trump fanboy.

https://voxluciuspolitics.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/j7i4y.jpg?w=490

[Methais]

Says the Trump fanboy.

He's not wrong though.

On another note, your responses have been so weak lately that they're not even up to XBox Live squeaker standards.

[Androidpk]

/r/the_donald proves you wrong

[~Rocktar~]

“going armed to the terror of the public” is a very old concept that has lead to an up tick in the arrest of gun carriers at protests. Fascinating.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/10/protests_might_be_on_place_you_can_t_carry_guns.ht ml

That is a nicely liberal slanted hit piece covered in a low key bit of rhetoric.

The argument predisposes that the Second Amendment right must be compromised to maintain peace based on the feelings of other people. Well, how about we take this to the extreme because sooner or later it will get there. Suppose some leftist or other fascist organization gets a bunch of co-conspirators together to organize a mob that goes around exposing anyone with a concealed carry license or who owns guns, waits until that person is seen with a gun and then cries foul to the court, with video evidence of course. Then you have an active infringement of other's rights, based on so called public safety and you slide even further down the rabbit hole. Don't believe this kind of thing can happen, well there are groups that invade private lands in Europe to harass hunters, we have had people impede the efforts of loggers on private lands in the US and so on. This isn't a far stretch to the fanatic gun banner. Make no mistake the left does not give one iota of concern for actual public safety, they care about control and how they can get more of it so they can "take care" of everyone because they are of course more emotionally caring and intellectually superior.

So, what other rights can we infringe upon based on other people's feelings because they get upset? How long is it before a group uses the same principle and case law as example to infringe on the First Amendment? "They said mean things that upset me, I was afraid, arrest them." What about stepping on the Fourth Amendment? Hey, I saw them take pork into their house, it upset me, go arrest them."

This law, while old and well established is very nebulous, based on emotions and undefinable standards and is just plain sloppy.

OH, and before I forget, does the law apply to police? I am 100% sure that lots of people are scared of police in riot gear and toting weapons. Are they causing unrest when they "go armed to the terror of the public" in a lot of cases, I would say more than most armed protesters.

Also, if the police were doing their job and protecting lawful protesters and enforcing the laws regarding riots, violence against others and so on, then perhaps protesters would not feel it so necessary to carry such weapons in the first place.

[Archigeek]

A wordy attempt to blame the liberals

People were arrested by the police, a notoriously liberal group in general. Sure, slate reported it, but they weren't out making arrests. I'd never even heard of the law.

[Tgo01]

People were arrested by the police, a notoriously liberal group in general.

Police are notoriously liberal?

Or is this some of dat der sarchasm I hear so much about?

[Archigeek]

Police are notoriously liberal?

Or is this some of dat der sarchasm I hear so much about?

Alas, I forgot the sarcasm font. :(

[Gelston]

It's a law that's been around longer than most laws in this country, so I'm guessing there's some case law out there. It will be interesting to see what happens. How do you parse the difference between "going armed to the terror of the public" and exercising your constitutional right to be a part of a well organized militia?

Just because it is old, doesn't make it constitutional. In New Orleans it is illegal for a woman to drive unless her husband is waving a flag 100 feet infront of the vehicle. Sometimes laws are made and forgotten.

[Methais]

/r/the_donald proves you wrong

See what I mean?

[Latrinsorm]

The argument predisposes that the Second Amendment right must be compromised to maintain peace based on the feelings of other people. Well, how about we take this to the extreme because sooner or later it will get there.Get a refund on your law school education imo.