Yuku free message boards

Why do we need a law saying that [ that it is illegal for convicted criminals or "mental cases" to "purchase guns at their leisure"], seeing that shooting people without sufficient reason is already illegal?

Because criminals have previously demonstrated an extreme lack of basic knowledge of or a disregard for the law, and "mental cases" I presume have demonstrated an incapacity to understand or follow the law, or a lack of prudent judgment or self-control regarding their own behavior and interactions with others. They can no longer be given the reasonable benefit of the doubt.

(It appears to me that you missed my point i this regard)

I don't think I missed your point. I hope I have explained that convicted criminals and "mental cases" often have certain restrictions placed on them, but that the general public having not previously demonstrated willful misconduct or incapacity to understand and follow the law are rightfully given the benefit of the doubt.

If, however, the armed defense of oneself is a "certain constitutional right" then limiting concealed carry to only certain people IS unconstitutional since the simple fact of carrying does not, in any way, infringe on anybody else's constitutional rights and certainly does not rise to the level of yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.

How many times are you going to quote me out of context even after I've repeatedly explained the meaning of my statement to you? I never called anything a "certain constitutional right". I said that the constitution certainly protects our right to defend ourselves (and our communities) from attacks foreign and domestic. It is clearly stated in the second amendment that the "right" of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because arms are necessary for the security of a free state, and not because they are useful for hunting. That was the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law, and that was my point: Hunting has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

Furthermore, to get back to the original subject, prohibition on consuming alcohol while carrying would be most certainly an undue limitiation of a "certain" constitutional right since the act itself does not infringe on anybody else's rights but certainly limits one's right to armed self-defense.

If that's the case, then why is it illegal in a great many places in the U.S. to be "drunk in public"? Not just to drive drunk, or to tote a gun drunk, but to be drunk, to exist in a public place in a drunken state. The reason is, the act of consuming alcohol is presumed to diminish the capacity of people to conduct themselves in a safe and responsible manner. Therefore, even though it may be perfectly legal, it may even be a "certain constitutional right" whatever that is, and whoever we are quoting as saying it, to peacably assemble, or to walk along the public roadway, or to have a gun, when one's capacity to behave reasonbly is impaired by a substance such as alcohol, there is a presumption, as in the case of your "mental case" or a convicted felon, that the person may be impaired, that they have a diminished capacity to understand or obey the law or to act in a reasonable responsible manner, and consequently pose a danger to themselves or others, and therefore their civil liberties may be restricted in the interest of public safety.

'Cause there is no constitutional right to be drunk.

But there is a constitutional right to assemble in public. That was my point. It is a reasonable assumption that someone who is drunk will have a diminished capacity to behave in a safe and responsible manner, and that is sufficient cause to limit their constitutional right to assemble in public.

That's the same reason that it is reasonable to restrict a person's constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Wasn't that your question?

Self-defense is governed by state law, not by the US Constitution.

The Constitution refers to the defense of a free state by the people, and the necessity of them keeping and bearing arms for that purpose.