The Right to Bear Arms

[Surenas]

Just the same as in UK, Balagor. At some point, everything got turned on its head and the criminal is the victim in our culture. At least in the USA there is some acknowledgment of the right of a citizen to defend themself.

,,, and that has led to what? :wacko:

 

http://www.greensmilies.com/smile/smiley_emoticons_unknownauthor_lady.gif The Ultimate Face

[Christine777]

The right to Carry and Keep arms?

Here in our country a civilian can be issued a temporary license to Keep and Carry weapons at a limited caliber. Provided he/she has really the need for protection. We have tight laws/rules here regarding weapons possession. There only very few civillians who were allowed to possess arms. And all of them were given a special "license to carry" or "license to possess" by the authority themselves for protection. By the way, "license to possess" and "license to carry" are two different things in here. Many are being given the "license to Possess" but not given the license to carry. License to posses means you can only have the weapon at home and not allowed to carry it. Perhaps these things are being taken into considearations by our government because we have many remote areas not being covered by the militia/police. And given also the fact that our Military and Police are not really sufficient in numbers to cover them all. In our town we have only 54 policemen in the ratio of about 350,000 populace, and bandits as well as rebels are still lurking near by. And because of this almost all homes here has a weapon both license and unlicense (from ordinary pistol, to automatic, even to high powered caliber such as M-14 Garan). Perhaps our case is situational.

 

And regarding the question to "the right bear arms", I think the answer is also situational.

 

I myself is in favor that civilians should not be allowed to bear arms, because they dont need it anyway. It is the duty of the authority/police to protect them. But having our situation here gives me a different point of view "for the moment."

 

 

[Aurielius]

@Christine777

On the one hand you admit that in your country of residence the police are not capable of properly defending you and that a fair proportion of the populace is armed legally and illegally; yet you hold reservations about the validity of legalized self defence. A 'Right' cannot be conditional on extingent circumstances otherwise it is not a right but permission, permission can be withdrawn by the government at their discretion. A 'right' supersedes the ability of the government to enfranchise or disenfranchise your ability to bear arms.

[ginnyfizz]

Just the same as in UK, Balagor. At some point, everything got turned on its head and the criminal is the victim in our culture. At least in the USA there is some acknowledgment of the right of a citizen to defend themself.

,,, and that has led to what? :wacko:

 

http://www.greensmilies.com/smile/smiley_emoticons_unknownauthor_lady.gif The Ultimate Face

 

 

Errrr....that citizens don't get hauled before the courts for defending themselves? I should have thought that was pretty obvious, Surenas.

 

As alluded to by Christine and Aurelius, police services are very often unable or unwilling to protect the general population, and may even act politically, yes I am afraid British policemen are like that. They themselves cannot invariably be trusted with a gun in their hands. Ask the family of the Brazilian who had eight bullets pumped into his head by the Metropolitan Police - he was pinned to the floor at the time with his hands behind his back, in front of a score or more witnesses, who told their story at the inquiry. A member of that same police force smacked me around the head with a baton for daring to demonstrate in favour of hunting with hounds. And yet, armed criminals are allowed the free run of their own "Manors", and there really is no defence at all for Mr and Mrs Average Citizen.

 

You may not like it, Surenas, but the fact is that stringent gun controls on the law abiding population have, in the UK, been a spectacular failure. The Yardies and Triads, and other mobsters, don't give a fig for the law and get their guns illegally, safe in the knowledge that they are unlikely to either get apprehended by the police, or get shot by an irate self defending citizen.

[Surenas]

You haven't answered a simple question that relates to the US and not to 'Carlos Marighela in Brazil' or somethin...

I repeat: That has led to what (in the USA of today) ?

 

http://www.greensmilies.com/smile/smiley_emoticons_unknownauthor_lady.gif The Ultimate Face

[ginnyfizz]

You haven't answered the simple question that relates to the US and not to 'Carlos Marighela in Brazil' or somethin...

I repeat: That has led to what (in the USA of today) ?

 

http://www.greensmilies.com/smile/smiley_emoticons_unknownauthor_lady.gif The Ultimate Face

 

Errr....and YOU obviously didn't read my post properly, or you would have noticed that I posted

 

"That citizens don't get hauled before the courts for defending themselves..." as a reference to what happens in the USA of today, where the citizens have the right to bear arms.

 

I suggest that you try debating, rather than just trolling every post I make, and actually get your facts right. There had been a discussion between two other members about the fact that police forces may or may not be capable of protecting their citizens, and that may be a factor in whether or not there should be the right to defend oneself with, if necessary, deadly force. I referred SPECIFICALLY to what they had been talking about, and pointed out that the police themselves cannot always be trusted to bear arms and hence the citizens may feel the need to. And this is where you have clearly not checked your facts in the rush to troll...the case I was referring to was that of a Brazilian immigrant called Jean Charles de Menezes, who was gunned down on the LONDON (not Brazilian) underground by the BRITISH (ie London Metropolitan) police after a catalog of sheer incompetence and error.

 

So please, do not ORDER me to respond in such a manner. Please debate, politely.

[Surenas]

Avoid subliminal ad hominem, my friend.

You still haven't understood my question. It deals with the situation in the USA - the stage and risks of public amarment (last but not least for the Obama administration) - and not in court in case of violence.

Don't pussyfoot around, cos that's a waste of time for the reader.

 

http://www.greensmilies.com/smile/smiley_emoticons_unknownauthor_lady.gif

[Kendo 2]

Just the same as in UK, Balagor. At some point, everything got turned on its head and the criminal is the victim in our culture. At least in the USA there is some acknowledgment of the right of a citizen to defend themself.

,,, and that has led to what? :wacko:

 

 

Well, in Texas it has lead to tougher criminal sanctions for CRIMINALS.

 

"The right to defend oneself from an imminent act of harm should not only be clearly defined in Texas law, but is intuitive to human nature," states Gov. Perry

 

 

Now the Texas Penal Code:

 

Sec. 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, he:

(1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a felony or theft; or

(2) remains concealed, with intent to commit a felony or theft, in a building or habitation; or

(3) enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony or theft.

(b) For purposes of this section, "enter" means to intrude:

(1) any part of the body; or

(2) any physical object connected with the body.

© Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a

(1) state jail felony if committed in a building other than a habitation; or

(2) felony of the second degree if committed in a habitation.

(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree if:

(1) the premises are a habitation; and

(2) [amended 9/1/95] any party to the offense entered the habitation with intent to commit a felony other than felony theft or committed or attempted to commit a felony other than felony theft.

Before 9/1/95 (d)(2) provided:

(2) any party to the offense entered the habitation with intent to commit a felony other than felony theft.

 

*Though the law doesn't specifiy, Burglary of a Habitation carries a minimum sentence now of 25 years to LIFE in prison.

 

Now pertinent parts of the Texas Constitution

 

The Texas Constitution

Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 23 - RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

 

 

"Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."

 

Self Defense Statutes

(Texas Penal Code)

 

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

 

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

 

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

 

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection ©;

 

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

 

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless

 

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

 

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or

 

(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:

 

(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or

 

(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

 

© The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

 

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

 

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

 

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

 

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.

Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,1994.

Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

 

Deadly Force in Defense of Person

 

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another if he would be justified in using force under Section 9.31 of the statute when and to the degree he reasonable believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, if a reasonable person in the same situation would have not retreated. The use of deadly force is also justified to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, rape or robbery."

 

Defense of Another Person

 

"A person is justified in using deadly force against an attacker to protect another person if he would be justified to use it to protect himself against an unlawful attack and he reasonably believes his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the other person from serious injury or death."

 

Deadly Force to Protect Property

 

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."

 

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"

 

Protection of the Property of Others

 

 

"A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect the property of a third person if he reasonably believes he would be justified to use similar force to protect his own property, and he reasonably believes that there existed an attempt or actual commission of the crime of theft or criminal mischief."

 

"Also, a person is justified in using force or deadly force if he reasonably believes that the third person has requested his protection of property; or he has a legal duty to protect the property; or the third person whose property he is protecting is his spouse, parent or child."

 

Reasonable Belief

 

"It is not necessary that there should be actual danger, as a person has the right to defend his life and person from apparent danger as fully and to the same extent as he would have were the danger real, as it reasonably appeared to him from his standpoint at the time."

 

"In fact, Sec 9.31(a) [of the Penal Code] expressly provides that a person is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary."

 

Justification for Using Deadly Force Can Be Lost

 

"Even though a person is justified in threatening or using force or deadly force against another in self defense or defense of others or property as described in the statute, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification for deadly force is unavailable."

 

"A person acts recklessly when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk with respect to the circumstances surrounding his conduct or the results of his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation of the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise, viewed from the person's standpoint under all the circumstances existing at the time."

 

Self Defense Definitions

 

"Assault is committed if a person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, causes bodily injury to another, or causes physical contact with another when he knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative."

 

"Aggravated assault is committed if a person commits Assault (qv.) and causes serious bodily injury to another, or causes bodily injury to a peace officer, or uses a deadly weapon."

 

"Burglary is committed if, without the effective consent of the owner, a person: 1) Enters a building, or any portion of a bulding, not open to the public with intent to commit a felony or theft, or 2) Remains concealed in a building with the intent to commit a felony or theft."

 

"Criminal Mischief is committed if, without the effective consent of the owner, a person: 1) Intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys the property of the owner, or 2) Tampers with the property of the owner and causes momentary loss or sustained inconvenience to the owner or third person."

 

 

SO.....There we are. The message is VERY clear. People do not break in to buildings they don't own and do not steal things. IF THEY DO, they'll be dead.

 

The Texas House is reviewing new legislation providing for citizens the ability to use deadly force to protect themselves and others IN PUBLIC and in the work place.

 

@Surenas

Your question has been asked and it is now answered. Answers will not change no matter how many times you ask the same questions, so I suggest you move on to your next point, if you have one. :wacko:

[ginnyfizz]

I think it's you using the ad hominem, Surenas, except that in your case it isn't quite so subtle. Trolling again. I was merely pointing out that YOU had missed the point of my argument. It is not YOUR place to give orders to me or anyone else on this forum. That right is reserved to the staff.

 

Once more, with feeling...

 

I related my remarks to the fact that the right to bear arms in the USA leads to citizens not ending up on a charge for defending their own homes. I and others have used comparative situations in other countries to illustrate that, in fact, there is certainly no less violence in countries where gun restrictions are extremely strict. There are frequent attempts to portray the right to bear arms in the USA as an all round slaughtering free for all, and to suggest that the right to bear arms makes the USA a particularly violent society, but the fact is, there are other places in the world with a worse crime rate...there is a city near me, Nottingham, which is one of the most violent in the world. We call it Shottingham...because our strict gun laws make no difference to the gangsters. It has been stated on these forums as well as in the international press, that there is a very high level of violent crime in some of the South African cities.

 

It is perfectly relevant to use illustrative comparisons, and to factor in the effectiveness or otherwise of a police force in defending citizens. Others have done this. It is also relevant to illustrate what can happen in a society where the citizens do NOT have the right to bear arms and yet the police do, and then when the police become a political tool, and protection by the police becomes, shall we say, selective. In the USA, citizens might have to wait a while for the cops to arrive to attend a robbery, but they do at least have the right in the meantime to pull a gun on the miscreants. From our experience here in the UK, I can say that NOT having a gun in your hand when confronted by a burglar who DOES have one, will NOT stop him shooting you. This is why I say, the US right to bear arms is, IMHO, valid and should remain.

[Aurielius]

@Kendo2

 

"Other states are trying to abolish the death penalty... mine's putting in an express lane."

Ron White

 

Don't mess with Texas :thumbsup: