Jump to content
SJG

Does a Homeless Man have a Second Amendment Right to Carry

Recommended Posts

Its not a "cool" answer, it is Mr Parkers right, and yours and mine. The State of Nj is in violation of the 2A. That is the entire issue.

Its not a "cool" answer, it is Mr Parkers right, and yours and mine. The State of Nj is in violation of the 2A. That is the entire issue.

If you take it at literal face value.... You should be able to own any arm at any time without any regulation.... A gang member should be able to walk into the local walmart buy a pallet of full auto AKs and 10k rounds of ammo.....if you think that is reasonable.... If you think its reasonable for a homeless person to leave a gun sitting on a park bench.. Then we are at an impasse....

 

I get the whole shall not be infringed.... And I get that NJ has an abusive unfair system... But I still find things like back ground checks as reasonable.... Some don't.... Some just want anyone (criminals included) to be able to buy any gun at any time.... I disagree with that stance because I don't see the logic in it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Federal judge.  I remember this has come up several times and each time ti was held that one could use a public space as an address.

 

Hypothetically, this should extend to gun ownership as well.

And you think that is reasonable.....

He gets to keep the gun at his park bench....

 

How many seconds do you think till it is stolen the second he leaves it sitting there for any stretch of time....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of this thread "does he have a right to CARRY?"

 

NO not in NJ because in NJ you need a license to carry a gun.... That's the law...

 

Could he hypothetically keep it at his park bench? Maybe... But that's a ridiculous discussion because leaving a gun on a park bench is irresponsible and idiotic.... There is no sane argument about that being a good idea...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you think that is reasonable.....

He gets to keep the gun at his park bench....

 

How many seconds do you think till it is stolen the second he leaves it sitting there for any stretch of time....

One of the joys of our country.  If a person has a right to use a park bench as their address for voting, that should extend to all rights, not just selected rights.

 

As for keeping it at the bench, etc, I do not believe I ever said it was a good idea or practical, but in a scholarly discussion, if a park bench is a valid address for voting, then it should be a valid address for all other areas where an address is required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you take it at literal face value.... You should be able to own any arm at any time without any regulation.... A gang member should be able to walk into the local walmart buy a pallet of full auto AKs and 10k rounds of ammo.....if you think that is reasonable.... If you think its reasonable for a homeless person to leave a gun sitting on a park bench.. Then we are at an impasse....

 

I get the whole shall not be infringed.... And I get that NJ has an abusive unfair system... But I still find things like back ground checks as reasonable.... Some don't.... Some just want anyone (criminals included) to be able to buy any gun at any time.... I disagree with that stance because I don't see the logic in it....

No, in Heller the Court gave guidance on who can and can not own or carry. Gang members by any standard should not be able to own or carry.

 

Leaving the gun on a park bench unattended is a separate  issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, in Heller the Court gave guidance on who can and can not own or carry. Gang members by any standard should not be able to own or carry.

 

Leaving the gun on a park bench unattended is a separate  issue.

Well that's just the point "shall not be infringed" says nothing about gang members... Or types of guns... But through time it has changed...

 

I'm just saying even if you allow someone to use a bench as an address.... There is no logical practical application of that when it comes to firearms.... The reality is he should just go be homeless in a state that allows open carry.... Problem solved...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He should be allowed to own the gun while he is on the park bench. Then if he wants to go to the range, he can go directly to - and directly from the range (as long as he is in a vehicle that he can secure both the gun and the ammo in separate containers in - and not in the glove box). If he is caught anywhere other than his park bench, the range or transporting to and from the range then he should be charged with criminal possession of the firearm.

 

I don't really think that's fair but that is my interpretation of NJ's unjust 2A laws.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NJ permits him to vote in elections and has determined that his home is the park

Where does it say in the Second Amendment that your right is contingent on having a fixed home?

Even if he want to give up the gun, he has to carry it to a place to do that, doesn't he? If he picks it up, he is carrying it, isn't he?

If he is legally permitted to own the gun, which he is, because it was left to him in a will, he has to pick it up, right? Once he picks it up, isn't he carrying it on his person?

In this circumstance, doesn't ownership give him the right to carry it in the park?

Why can he only have it on the park bench? If he is going to use the public restroom in the park, shouldn't he be permitted to take it with him? Leaving on the park bench while he goes to the rest room does not seem like a good idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, in Heller the Court gave guidance on who can and can not own or carry. Gang members by any standard should not be able to own or carry.

 

Leaving the gun on a park bench unattended is a separate  issue.

 

I think that would depend of the definition of a "gang member".

Without a definition, this is open to a lot of assumptions.

 

Does he ride his motorcycle in a group, or is is a full fledged Blood?

If he is not a criminal, I would see no problem with him having a gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of this thread "does he have a right to CARRY?"

 

NO not in NJ because in NJ you need a license to carry a gun.... That's the law...

 

Could he hypothetically keep it at his park bench? Maybe... But that's a ridiculous discussion because leaving a gun on a park bench is irresponsible and idiotic.... There is no sane argument about that being a good idea...

 

I think this would be a great case cor the ACLU  :girlwerewolf:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't he just carry around a double barrel shotgun!?  JK, JK.

 

He has the right to bear arms but depending on which state he is "residing" he maybe in violation of that particular state's laws.....which are more than likely in violation of the Constitution. 

 

If he lives in NJ he is going to jail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that it is not his status of being homeless that is important, what is important is that there is no restriction on what place you can make and declare your home to be. If he lives in the park in NJ and votes in NJ then he is a NJ resident. If he is a NJ resident, that means he is residing someplace--  If he has made his home in the park,and resides in the park then that is his home The statute does not restrict the place you declare to be your home. If he lives in the park and that is his home then he should be able to carry his gun in that park. Isn't the Second Amendment a personal right that now applies to all persons, other than minors, criminals and insane people and is not contingent on a person owning or leasing a fixed structure which is a home? Clearly, he cannot carry outside the park without a carry permit in NJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A homeless person being able to keep a firearm with them without a carry permit is never going to happen in NJ for two reasons:

 

First, It's still a public space whether or not someone lists a park bench as an address or not. The homeless person does not own the bench nor have exclusive right to control it. The exemption in the law regarding carrying states: "about his residence, premises or other land owned or possessed by him", a homeless person would have none of these.

 

Second, If this would be ruled to be legal, what would stop any of us from claiming that the same park bench or a public street or every public place is our second or third or forth etc. address, and therefore we would be allowed to carry everywhere? What would stop any of us from claiming a park bench in PA as an address and then being able to buy full auto since we would then be a PA resident?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he is not allowed to possess it, then it would be some form of discrimination. 

I see potential in your line of thought.  SCOTUS has ruled that requiring people to have ID to vote is unconstitutional based on it representing a burden on a voter without the financial resources to pay the state for a DL or other acceptable ID.  NJs regulations could be viewed in the same light, except we're not talking $20 min every few years for renewal for ID, we're talking thousands of dollars a year for an address that would be accepted by NJs gun laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony is that our government is committing a crime against our constitutional right by infringing upon our right to bear arms, but saying it's ok to claim a park bench as your residence so that you can vote. Meanwhile he probably has to leave the park at dusk. And I'm about a million percent sure they won't count that bench as his place of residence if he puts it down on a firearms ID application.

 

It's all gone mad!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Federal judge.  I remember this has come up several times and each time ti was held that one could use a public space as an address.

 

Hypothetically, this should extend to gun ownership as well.

A ruling made by a federal judge is only applicable the case he or she is hearing. It is not a "nation wide" ruling. A different judge can rule 180 degrees from this ruling. Ruling he can use a park bench as an address for voting applies to that and that alone. The only court where rulings are nation wide is SCOTUS decisions. However, once again they apply to only what's in the scope of the argument. MacDonald said IL has to institute a carry permit system has no impact on other states.

 

There are other issues regarding gun ownership when you live on a park bench. There are laws requiring you to secure firearms from children. I'm sure these would be considered "reasonable restrictions". Where does he secure his firearm on the park bench. As it is his voting address does that mean he has an expectation of privacy in relation to the park bench? If he puts something in the park bench do police need a warrant to search it? I think not as he doesn't own it, he just lives there amd can use it for a voting address. There are "reasonable restrictions" to just about all your rights and that probably extends to gun ownership if you live on a park bench.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a responsible gun owner, this homeless man should realize he cannot secure his firearm nor prohibit access to minors, cannot practice and become proficient, and cannot afford maintenance or ammunition, so he should sell the firearm before taking possession until such time he can excercise his right responsibly.

 

It should never get as far as the courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a responsible gun owner, this homeless man should realize he cannot secure his firearm nor prohibit access to minors, cannot practice and become proficient, and cannot afford maintenance or ammunition, so he should sell the firearm before taking possession until such time he can excercise his right responsibly.

 

It should never get as far as the courts.

I would think that your could argue that a homeless guy needs a gun more so that someone who lives behind the safety of a locked door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does he have to secure the gun on the park bench? If he has a right to carry it, he can carry it on his person 24/7. He still has a fourth amendment right against illegal searches of his person. Therefore he should be able to "secure"  the gun on his person. If he lived in a house, he could walk around the house 24/7 and carry it, right? There is no requirement that to be able to keep it in your home, you have to practice. Anyway, he claims to be a veteran and put his life on the line for our country, isn't that enough? Lots of these homeless people end up as crime victims because they are on the street and vulnerable, he probably has a greater need to carry then the average person. I am not aware of any requirement that says that in order to own or carry a gun, you have to have money to buy ammo. Maybe he already has some ammo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does he have to secure the gun on the park bench? If he has a right to carry it, he can carry it on his person 24/7. He still has a fourth amendment right against illegal searches of his person. Therefore he should be able to "secure"  the gun on his person. If he lived in a house, he could walk around the house 24/7 and carry it, right? There is no requirement that to be able to keep it in your home, you have to practice. Anyway, he claims to be a veteran and put his life on the line for our country, isn't that enough? Lots of these homeless people end up as crime victims because they are on the street and vulnerable, he probably has a greater need to carry then the average person. I am not aware of any requirement that says that in order to own or carry a gun, you have to have money to buy ammo. Maybe he already has some ammo.

So your okay with this guy sleeping on the park bench as long as his gun is "secured" on his person? Does he have to sleep on the side he"s carrying his gun for it to be secured?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't people who camp out, hunt or fish and carry face the same problem? Why is the situation any different?

 

Well leave out hunting and fishing as you are awake when you're doing that.  The difference in camping is you're not doing that on a park bench.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that your could argue that a homeless guy needs a gun more so that someone who lives behind the safety of a locked door.

 

True – however, if homeless man is in legal possession of a said firearm in a state without or with a strict Castle Doctrine, what is his "reasonable” responsibility to retreat?

 

And if someone sits on the bench, is that a home invasion?

 

(To be clear treating this thread as a 100% hypothetical exercise)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • olight.jpg

    Use Promo Code "NJGF10" for 10% Off Regular Items

  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Similar Content

    • By Ramup422
      ANNOUNCEMENT: The Party of 6 would like to announce our first Tavern Meeting which will take place on June 25th, 2016 at 130pm. This would not be occurring without the direct support of RTSP, the premier indoor shooting range, store, and training facility. As the leader in the state of New Jersey for all things concerning firearms, the owners/operators of RTSP are patriots! RTSP and their magnificent facility are leading the way in direct support of the Party of Six. On June 25th, the Party of Six will host a meet and greet with the following: Mr. Albert Almeida, Mr. Michael Tumminelli, Mr. Mark Cheeseman and Mr. Stephen Stamboulieh (Lead Attorney for Almeida/Tumminelli). This is our opportunity to say thank and to answer all the questions that we possibly can. It will also give those who have yet to visit RTSP, a chance to see what they have to offer in way of sales, ranges and personnel. Additional guests will include but not limited to: Mr. Scott Kesterson of Kilroy Rising, a group who is in direct support of 2A causes at the national level as well as critical issues concerning our great country. Please mark your calendar and join us in the fight!
       
      LOCATION:
      961 Route 10 East, Randolph, NJ 07869
      P: (973) 434 7600 / F: (973) 252 1048 [email protected]
    • By Ramup422
      Daniel Spafford is a Rutgers law school 3L and is slated to become a lawyer in the Spring of 2015. You can read his article in its entirety at www.justifiableneed.com under the "opinions" tab.
       
      It talks about the Shaneen Allen case, the Brian Aitken case and the fight of Albert Almeida that is fighting for carry rights of all in NJ.
       
       
    • By SJG
      DES MOINES, Iowa -- Here's some news that has law enforcement officials and lawmakers scratching their heads:
      Iowa is granting permits to acquire or carry guns in public to people who are legally or completely blind.
      No one questions the legality of the permits. State law does not allow sheriffs to deny an Iowan the right to carry a weapon based on physical ability.
      The quandary centers squarely on public safety. Advocates for the disabled and Iowa law enforcement officers disagree over whether it's a good idea for visually disabled Iowans to have weapons.
      On one side: People such as Cedar County Sheriff Warren Wethington, who demonstrated for The Des Moines Register how blind people can be taught to shoot guns. And Jane Hudson, executive director of Disability Rights Iowa, who says blocking visually impaired people from the right to obtain weapon permits would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. That federal law generally prohibits different treatment based on disabilities
      On the other side: People such as Dubuque County Sheriff Don Vrotsos, who said he wouldn't issue a permit to someone who is blind. And Patrick Clancy, superintendent of the Iowa Braille and Sight Saving School, who says guns may be a rare exception to his philosophy that blind people can participate fully in life.
      Private gun ownership — even hunting — by visually impaired Iowans is nothing new. But the practice of visually impaired residents legally carrying firearms in public became widely possible thanks to gun permit changes that took effect in Iowa in 2011.
      "It seems a little strange, but the way the law reads we can't deny them (a permit) just based on that one thing," said Sgt. Jana Abens, a spokeswoman for the Polk County Sheriff's Department, referring to a visual disability.
      Polk County officials say they've issued weapons permits to at least three people who can't legally drive and were unable to read the application forms or had difficulty doing so because of visual impairments.
      And sheriffs in three other counties — Jasper, Kossuth and Delaware — say they have granted permits to residents who they believe have severe visual impairments.
      "I'm not an expert in vision," Delaware County Sheriff John LeClere said. "At what point do vision problems have a detrimental effect to fire a firearm? If you see nothing but a blurry mass in front of you, then I would say you probably shouldn't be shooting something."
      Training the visually impaired
      In one Iowa county, blind residents who want weapons would likely receive special training.
      Wethington, the Cedar County sheriff, has a legally blind daughter who plans to obtain a permit to carry when she turns 21 in about two years. He demonstrated for the Register how he would train blind people who want to carry a gun.
      "If sheriffs spent more time trying to keep guns out of criminals' hands and not people with disabilities, their time would be more productive," Wethington said as he and his daughter took turns practice shooting with a semi-automatic handgun on private property in rural Cedar County.
      The number of visually impaired or blind Iowans who can legally carry weapons in public is unknown because that information is not collected by the state or county sheriffs who issue the permits.
      Clancy, superintendent of the Iowa Braille and Sight Saving School, said the range of sight among people who are classified as legally blind varies greatly. He believes there are situations where such applicants can safely handle a gun.
      Quentin DeVore, a legally blind Army veteran from Newton, Iowa photographed in March 2013, is a gun enthusiast and collector. Despite his vision impairment, DeVore holds a permit to carry a firearm, and says he is well within his legal rights to do so.(Photo: Bryon Houlgrave, The Des Moines Register)
      However, he also expressed concerns.
      "Although people who are blind can participate fully in nearly all life's experiences, there are some things like the operation of a weapon that may very well be an exception," Clancy said.
      The Gun Control Act of 1968 and other federal laws do not prohibit blind people from owning guns. But unlike Iowa, some states have laws that spell out whether visually impaired people can obtain weapon permits.
      Vision requirements are either directly or indirectly part of the weapon permit criteria in some surrounding states.
      In Nebraska, for example, applicants for a permit to carry a concealed handgun must provide "proof of vision" by either presenting a valid state driver's license or a statement by an eye doctor that the person meets vision requirements set for a typical vehicle operator's license.
      Other states have indirect requirements that could — but don't automatically — disqualify people who are blind. That includes Missouri and Minnesota, where applicants must complete a live fire test, which means they have to shoot and hit a target.
      A 50-state database of gun permit requirements published by USACarry.com also shows that South Carolina has a law that requires proof of vision before a person is approved for a weapons permit.
      Wisconsin, like Iowa, has no visual restrictions on gun permit applicants. Illinois lawmakers enacted a concealed weapons law in July but permits have not yet been issued. Illinois' qualifications don't specifically require a visual test, but applicants must complete firearms training that includes range instruction.
      The National Federation of the Blind does not track states that require vision tests as part of weapon permit processes and has not taken an official stand on the issue. But its members are generally opposed to such laws, said Chris Danielsen, director of public relations for the group.
      "There's no reason solely on the (basis) of blindness that a blind person shouldn't be allowed to carry a weapon," Danielsen said. "Presumably they're going to have enough sense not to use a weapon in a situation where they would endanger other people, just like we would expect other people to have that common sense."
      Iowa requires training for anyone who is issued a permit to carry a weapon in public, but that requirement can be satisfied through an online course that does not include any hands-on instruction or a shooting test.
      A provision in Iowa's law allows sheriffs to deny a permit if probable cause exists to believe that the person is likely to use the weapon in such a way that it would endanger themselves or others. Many sheriffs noted, however, that the provision relates to specific documented actions, and applicants who appealed their cases would likely win.
      Hudson, executive director of Disability Rights Iowa, believes changing the state law to deny blind people or others with physical disabilities the right to carry arms would violate federal disabilities law.
      Part of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires a public entity to conduct an individualized analysis to make a reasonable judgment before denying a service. Hudson believes someone could successfully challenge Nebraska's proof of vision requirement as illegal.
      "The fact that you can't drive a car doesn't mean you can't go to a shooting range and see a target," Hudson said.
      My comment: it is amazing to me that a blind person might be in a better position, than a sighted one, as they can argue they have a right to a carry permit under the ADA and the Second Amendment
    • By MadeInAmerica
      I ain't planning nuthin, I'm just askin. Since to bring a case before SCOTUS, one has to have suffered harm or loss due to a law, what about carrying w/o a permit? One would get arrested... What would the sacrificial lamb have to go through on his way to a hearing before SCOTUS? Like I said before, I'm just askin.
  • Posts

×
×
  • Create New...