Virginia to ban all forms of self defense

[Gerry Seymour]

note to mods, this is history, i have no political point to make

a lot of this miscommunication is to do with the transatlantic divided and how the same words are used completely differently in different cultures

what most of the world means by '' human rights'' is those rights enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights, made in 1948.

americans tend to used the term to relate to the bill of right and the constitution of the US written in the mid 1700. which for its time was ground breaking and the main reason for the mass immigration from europe by ''oppressed'' minorities

As such there is always going to be a bone of contention.

now as a fact of history its fair to say that some counties have been slow, ( seventy odd years slow) in implementing the human rights declared in 1948 , america and the UK amongst them. my own country only put the right to life on the statue book around the turn of the century, though actual executions stopped in the early 60s , we retained the legal right to execute for high crimes( treason etc)

america to its credit does have the right to free speech, something that is being very quickly eroded in this country and around the world, but lacks significantly in some other area, such as the right to life and the right to a '' decent'' standard of living and recognising the jurisdiction of the international criminal court

i've copied a link to the universal declaration of human rights so that perhaps we can be conscious of the definitions being used by each other ?
Universal Declaration of Human Rights

That's the difference between history and politics. Well stated, Jobo.

 

[JP3]

Regarding the OP, and I admit I'm showing up late, that proposed statute (which probably isn't going to clear committee by the way), has this interresting phrase scattered through it: "intending to employ such training for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder;"

So, if you're not intending to cause/create a "civil disorder," you won't be in violation of that law.

I still don't think it gets anywhere. I didn't do a google follow-up to see what the status is, did someone else?

 

[dvcochran]

Regarding the OP, and I admit I'm showing up late, that proposed statute (which probably isn't going to clear committee by the way), has this interresting phrase scattered through it: "intending to employ such training for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder;"

So, if you're not intending to cause/create a "civil disorder," you won't be in violation of that law.

I still don't think it gets anywhere. I didn't do a google follow-up to see what the status is, did someone else?

It is so laced with legalese that it is wide open for interpretation. I feel at some point a court of law could/would use it in absence of the 'civil disorder caveat.

 

[jobo]

Regarding the OP, and I admit I'm showing up late, that proposed statute (which probably isn't going to clear committee by the way), has this interresting phrase scattered through it: "intending to employ such training for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder;"

So, if you're not intending to cause/create a "civil disorder," you won't be in violation of that law.

I still don't think it gets anywhere. I didn't do a google follow-up to see what the status is, did someone else?

i did point out that very statement on the second or third post of the thread, that made no difference to the paranoia, that someone was going to take their guns away.

i've often wonder with guns , if its paranoid people who have guns or is it the possession of a gun that induces paranoia

 

[dvcochran]

if its paranoid people who have guns or is it the possession of a gun that induces paranoia

Most often neither.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It is so laced with legalese that it is wide open for interpretation. I feel at some point a court of law could/would use it in absence of the 'civil disorder caveat.

The history of the American court system suggests they're more likely to be pretty restrictive on how it could be applied, because of that wording.

 

[dvcochran]

The history of the American court system suggests they're more likely to be pretty restrictive on how it could be applied, because of that wording.

I agree that 'civil disorder' is a hot phrase right now, but I have to respectfully disagree. Over 80% of our laws are written by defense attorneys. Being attorneys (my wife is one)they are insidious at twisting words, intent, and the very definition.
A lot of my mistrust comes from getting hammered in the courtroom when I was a LEO. Usually over the smallest of things that any other time would mean nothing. They are very good at it.

 

[lklawson]

And then I preceded to show links about the Militias who were part of that fighting force. The militias were part of that army .

Which is simply not the same. Since the beginning there was a regular, well organized, army. Just because there was often militia rolled in, doesn't mean there wasn't a regular army. There was.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[JP3]

It is so laced with legalese that it is wide open for interpretation. I feel at some point a court of law could/would use it in absence of the 'civil disorder caveat.

The "civil disorder" and the intent to create such is a requirement, a mandated element of the offense. If a court attempted to just "go around that," the defense attorney would have reversible error to hand, would point that out while "in" court, and the court (typically) wouldn't try to make and end run around it.

 

[dvcochran]

The "civil disorder" and the intent to create such is a requirement, a mandated element of the offense. If a court attempted to just "go around that," the defense attorney would have reversible error to hand, would point that out while "in" court, and the court (typically) wouldn't try to make and end run around it.

I am familiar with the need for intent to create. My bigger point is the vehicle that writes into creation most laws are from the defense attorney perspective. Not in civil disorder specifically but laws in general. Very much a self feeding wheel.
It is a long running subject of debate around the card table at our home.

 

[jobo]

I am familiar with the need for intent to create. My bigger point is the vehicle that writes into creation most laws are from the defense attorney perspective. Not in civil disorder specifically but laws in general. Very much a self feeding wheel.
It is a long running subject of debate around the card table at our home.

if they are written from a defence attorneys point of view, which to be honest i doubt, then they are written from your defence attorneys point of view if your charge with this,

 

[dvcochran]

if they are written from a defence attorneys point of view, which to be honest i doubt, then they are written from your defence attorneys point of view if your charge with this,

That was exactly my point. As an arresting officer, you are at a disadvantage from jump.

 

[jobo]

That was exactly my point. As an arresting officer, you are at a disadvantage from jump.

i though your point was that this may get misused to wrongly charge gun owner and martial artiist, in which case the arresting officer being at a disadvantage is a good thing

people point of view tends to change on the make up of the law dependent if they are the victim or the victims sympathize or the accused or their sympathisers

watching the guilty go free is galling, if however you've ever been wrongly accused of a crime, you suddenly think the checks and balances that put a high burden of evidence on the prosecution is a very good idea indeed.

I've been on both sides of that and it is indeed a difficult balancing act for the law writers

 

[dvcochran]

i though your point was that this may get misused to wrongly charge gun owner and martial artiist, in which case the arresting officer being at a disadvantage is a good thing

people point of view tends to change on the make up of the law dependent if they are the victim or the victims sympathize or the accused or their sympathisers

watching the guilty go free is galling, if however you've ever been wrongly accused of a crime, you suddenly think the checks and balances that put a high burden of evidence on the prosecution is a very good idea indeed.

I've been on both sides of that and it is indeed a difficult balancing act for the law writers

My original point is that the proposed bill is laced with wording allowing it to be interpreted multiple ways (legalese), increasing the risk that it would be used against something like teaching MA's.
My experience in the courtroom was simply supporting my argument.

 

[dvcochran]

if they are written from a defence attorneys point of view, which to be honest i doubt, then they are written from your defence attorneys point of view if your charge with this,

Look it up; it is easy to support this as fact. It is not a secret at all.

 

[jobo]

Look it up; it is easy to support this as fact. It is not a secret at all.

well there written from the point of view of not convicting the innocent, not convicting the guilty is sometimes a side effect of that. that not the same as saying they are written for the express purpose of helping defence attorneys, which seems to be what your saying

 

[jobo]

My original point is that the proposed bill is laced with wording allowing it to be interpreted multiple ways (legalese), increasing the risk that it would be used against something like teaching MA's.
My experience in the courtroom was simply supporting my argument.

I know that was your original point,, then you changed it to a different and contary point

 

[dvcochran]

well there written from the point of view of not convicting the innocent, not convicting the guilty is sometimes a side effect of that. that not the same as saying they are written for the express purpose of helping defence attorneys, which seems to be what your saying

Just stating facts. Like I said, look it up.

 

[dvcochran]

I know that was your original point,, then you changed it to a different and contary point

Contrary; are you self reflecting?
I explained my two ideas and how they related to each other. Nowhere was it contrary to the original line of thinking.
Why do you do this to yourself?

 

[jobo]

Just stating facts. Like I said, look it up.

if you look it up on one of those right wing everyone should have gun, execute them all, opinion sites then it probably is a '' fact'' if you a bit more liberal minded then i suspect not+