Second Amendment Recognition for Wyoming (Cheyenne, Gillette: find a job, movie theaters, high school)

[Happy in Wyoming]

Originally Posted by ElkHunter

In Wyoming, the old law was:

6-8-104. Wearing or carrying concealed weapons; penalties; exceptions; permits.

(a) A person who wears or carries a concealed deadly weapon is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00), imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six (6) months, or both, unless:


But I haven't read the final printing of what was just signed. I don't know if this changed.

The second offense is now a felony. Clearly, our work is not finished. concealed carry must be treated exactly the same as open carry, that is, no mention in the law. Obviously, anyone in a bar who has a brain is carrying a gun. But we need to keep the argument at a philosophical level. The Second Amendment is absolute, just as absolute as any of the others.

We must work to repeal all gun laws of every state and of the East Coast Federal Government.

[wyolady]

Originally Posted by ElkHunter

So many people take the first example and come away thinking they know the law.

You are so right, ElkHunter. This is completely off-topic, but hilarious. Remember back in like 1995 when the speed limit changed on WY interstates from 65 to 75?

Well, I had a friend driving from Rock River to Bosler (4 lanes but not an interstate) and was pulled over for going 75. She told the cop, completely serious now (and yes, she is blonde)

"No officer, you are wrong. I wasn't speeding. The speed limit just changed from 65 to 75. Gosh, I would think your boss would have told you that."

[molon labe]

Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming

The second offense is now a felony. Clearly, our work is not finished. concealed carry must be treated exactly the same as open carry, that is, no mention in the law. Obviously, anyone in a bar who has a brain is carrying a gun. But we need to keep the argument at a philosophical level. The Second Amendment is absolute, just as absolute as any of the others.

We must work to repeal all gun laws of every state and of the East Coast Federal Government.

Reference please...

[Happy in Wyoming]

Originally Posted by molon labe

Reference please...

The new law is not yet on the Wyoming website in the section on codes. I assume that this is because it doesn't become law until July 1. I had previously read about this amendment to the bill, but thought it had been defeated, Then I read this article in the local newspaper. The mention of the second offense is about the middle of the article. They are referring to the bill the Senate passed. There were no amendments in the House. Had there been, there would have had to be a conference afterwards. None took place.

Cody Enterprise: Local News - Concealed carry bill gets support

I cannot find either the committee report from the Senate or the actual law.

[F350]

Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming

The second offense is now a felony. Clearly, our work is not finished. concealed carry must be treated exactly the same as open carry, that is, no mention in the law. Obviously, anyone in a bar who has a brain is carrying a gun. But we need to keep the argument at a philosophical level. The Second Amendment is absolute, just as absolute as any of the others.

We must work to repeal all gun laws of every state and of the East Coast Federal Government.

philosophically, maybe - in practice, no. hence the existence of the Supreme Court. despite the First Amendment; you "absolutely" can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre. there are limitations on most of these amendments - popular or not - and they are not strictly construed.

[Happy in Wyoming]

Originally Posted by F350

philosophically, maybe - in practice, no. hence the existence of the Supreme Court. despite the First Amendment; you "absolutely" can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre. there are limitations on most of these amendments - popular or not - and they are not strictly construed.

Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater would be a crime. The person doing it would be sued or procecuted for any injury or death. It's the same with guns. There is no protection for someone who commits a crime with a gun. But people like you are trying to say that the government has a right to punish people because they might commit a crime. It would be the same as gagging people so that they couldn't shout "Fire".

[ElkHunter]

Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming

Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater would be a crime. The person doing it would be sued or procecuted for any injury or death. It's the same with guns. There is no protection for someone who commits a crime with a gun. But people like you are trying to say that the government has a right to punish people because they might commit a crime. It would be the same as gagging people so that they couldn't shout "Fire".

I sure didn't read his statement the way you did. I didn't see where "People Like Him" saying the gov has the right to punish prior to a crime. I read it that even if law, the Supreme court always finds a way to bend it to their liking. It is not absolute, yet. It can be, with time, but as long as we have a Supreme court, they are going to interpret differently every time they are questioned. It's unfortunate, to say the least. But it happens and it shouldn't.

[Wm Jas]

Example: In Maine the law reads:

Section 16. To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.

This law was passed a few years ago as a ballot referendum and as a strict constitutionalist I was against it. I wanted some restrictions such as for convicted violent felons who have been released from prison.

Because I knew that the courts would never respect the clear, unambiguous meaning of the law as written I figured that they would take the liberty of redefining it as they wanted. And that is exactly what they have done.

A poorly written law that appears to maximize personal liberty is much worse than a law that recognizes reasonable limitations from the beginning.

[molon labe]

There is no such thing as "reasonable" restrictions; anything the government is allowed to regulate pertaining to small arms is an unreasonable restriction. People seem to forget that the reason the 2A was spelled out is because the founders were worried about future tyranny from the government they were creating.

There is never a reason to allow the bank robber to decide what the bank tellers can/can't have or which ones are "non-prohibited" tellers. Eventually all tellers will be armed with single-shot .22's (while the robber has an M16) or all of them will be "prohibited persons" for one reason or another.

The military/police/secret service/private security/etc were never supposed to have weapons that were banned from the ordinary citizen. That creates the very situation of the fox guarding the hen house that the founding fathers feared. A felon who has already killed/robbed/raped somebody will obey a law that says he/she can't have a firearm? If they want a gun they will just burglarize a house and steal one. If they're that horrible that they can't be "trusted" by the all-deciding government to own a firearm why are they free in society? The only sure bet in that scenario is that the government, over time, will expand the "prohibited" category to include other things. A corrupt government will always find "reasonable" restrictions on anything they want to restrict. The only sure bet is to never allow them to move forward an inch on anything that "shall not be infringed."

Originally Posted by Wm Jas

Example: In Maine the law reads:

Section 16. To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.

This law was passed a few years ago as a ballot referendum and as a strict constitutionalist I was against it. I wanted some restrictions such as for convicted violent felons who have been released from prison.

Because I knew that the courts would never respect the clear, unambiguous meaning of the law as written I figured that they would take the liberty of redefining it as they wanted. And that is exactly what they have done.

A poorly written law that appears to maximize personal liberty is much worse than a law that recognizes reasonable limitations from the beginning.

[ImAHobbit]

Amen! Had to rep ya.