From: tony cooper on
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:44:17 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
wrote:

>Be sure to write the first time you encounter a CHP officer with your
>idea that you have an inherent right to carry a concealed weapon
>without a permit. I'd be interested to see how that plays out.
>
>I have spent many happy hours arguing exactly that with California Police
>officers......My wife's grandson-in-law happens to be one. In many cases
>they agree with my position on the matter.

This is the ChrisH School of Reasoning. If you know one person who
shares your opinion, that means "everyone" agrees with you.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Neil Harrington on

"John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:kke3c55qr6117r0vmt1qb9fgjsv6j73949(a)4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:44:17 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"frank" <dhssresearcher(a)netscape.net> wrote in message
>>news:9df306e6-ac35-44d6-af9d-f285d4f89483(a)d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...

[ . . . ]
>>
>>Be sure to write the first time you encounter a CHP officer with your
>>idea that you have an inherent right to carry a concealed weapon
>>without a permit. I'd be interested to see how that plays out.
>>
>>I have spent many happy hours arguing exactly that with California Police
>>officers......My wife's grandson-in-law happens to be one. In many cases
>>they agree with my position on the matter. It's the supreme court
>>decisions
>>that have disagreed with me. But the wording of the second amendment is
>>easily interpreted by anyone who understands English, and many intelligent
>>people (including some policemen) agree with me on this.
>
> I forget - did you mention which well-regulated militia you were in?

In the U.S., "militia" has a somewhat different meaning than it does in most
other countries.

"Militia" is legally defined as both the *organized* militia (National
Guard, etc.) and the *unorganized* militia (essentially, all male citizens
of military age). This has always been part of the federal code and it still
is, up to the latest revision in 1970, I believe.

The modifying expression "well-regulated" can be taken to mean almost
anything, and as far as I know has never been defined. For example, the
Militia Act of 1792 required all men of military age to own a *regulation*
musket, bayonet and accouterments. Such ownership in itself might have
satisfied the "well-regulated" requirement.


From: J. Clarke on
tony cooper wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:44:17 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Be sure to write the first time you encounter a CHP officer with your
>> idea that you have an inherent right to carry a concealed weapon
>> without a permit. I'd be interested to see how that plays out.
>>
>> I have spent many happy hours arguing exactly that with California
>> Police officers......My wife's grandson-in-law happens to be one. In
>> many cases they agree with my position on the matter.
>
> This is the ChrisH School of Reasoning. If you know one person who
> shares your opinion, that means "everyone" agrees with you.

I had a police officer explain matters to me this way:

"If you shoot me when I come to enforce a gun ban, I won't hold it against
you."

Many police disagree with some of the laws that they are required to
enforce, but they do their jobs anyway.

From: Neil Harrington on

"Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
news:fI-dnVrWwvvYp1_XnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
> news:2009092908424593099-savageduck(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...

[ . . . ]
>>
>> My understanding was Colt's first rifles were .44 cap&ball revolver
>> actions based on the 1860 Army. Our old pals Horace Smith and Daniel
>> Wesson had produced a lever action repeating pistol, the "Volcanic
>> pistol". They failed as a business and the design was incorporated into
>> the Henry rifle and Winchester eventually ate them up. They went their
>> own way producing the first rimfire pistols in 1863.
>
> I thought a little earlier than that, but I could be wrong.

No, I was right. Just Googled it and this source says S&W started
manufacturing their first revolver in 1856:
http://www.answers.com/topic/smith-wesson

That's actually a bit earlier than I thought. I thought it was about 1859.
But I was fairly sure that some Union officers were buying S&W Model 1s as
personal weapons at the very beginning of the so-called Civil War (1861).


From: Savageduck on
On 2009-09-29 10:09:13 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> said:

>
> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message
> news:fI-dnVrWwvvYp1_XnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>> news:2009092908424593099-savageduck(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>
> [ . . . ]
>>>
>>> My understanding was Colt's first rifles were .44 cap&ball revolver
>>> actions based on the 1860 Army. Our old pals Horace Smith and Daniel
>>> Wesson had produced a lever action repeating pistol, the "Volcanic
>>> pistol". They failed as a business and the design was incorporated into
>>> the Henry rifle and Winchester eventually ate them up. They went their
>>> own way producing the first rimfire pistols in 1863.
>>
>> I thought a little earlier than that, but I could be wrong.
>
> No, I was right. Just Googled it and this source says S&W started
> manufacturing their first revolver in 1856:
> http://www.answers.com/topic/smith-wesson
>
> That's actually a bit earlier than I thought. I thought it was about 1859.
> But I was fairly sure that some Union officers were buying S&W Model 1s as
> personal weapons at the very beginning of the so-called Civil War (1861).

Well I am relieved to find some common ground in this current polarized
mess we are living in.
Who ever said guns weren't fun?

--
Regards,

Savageduck