Comments on: The Right To Public Safety http://www.publicsafetysignals.com/2008/03/20/the-right-to-public-safety/ A discussion of Public Safety issues and why they matter Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:06:14 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Ken Fisher http://www.publicsafetysignals.com/2008/03/20/the-right-to-public-safety/comment-page-1/#comment-708 Ken Fisher Sat, 21 Jun 2008 15:27:43 +0000 http://www.publicsafetysignals.com/2008/03/20/the-right-to-public-safety/#comment-708 This is very simple, the Preamble begins, "We the people". Not "We the militia" or "We the government". Therefore, the meaning of THE PEOPLE means ALL Americans have the right to bear arms and it SHALL not be infringed. There is no room for "interpreting" this. There is no room for personal opinions on this. There is NO room for changing this. I have been sworn to protect and defend the Constitution on many occasions and I have done so. I will uphold my defense of this until the day I die. This is very simple, the Preamble begins, “We the people”. Not “We the militia” or “We the government”. Therefore, the meaning of THE PEOPLE means ALL Americans have the right to bear arms and it SHALL not be infringed. There is no room for “interpreting” this. There is no room for personal opinions on this. There is NO room for changing this. I have been sworn to protect and defend the Constitution on many occasions and I have done so. I will uphold my defense of this until the day I die.

]]> By: Jen Zammetti http://www.publicsafetysignals.com/2008/03/20/the-right-to-public-safety/comment-page-1/#comment-530 Jen Zammetti Fri, 23 May 2008 16:47:42 +0000 http://www.publicsafetysignals.com/2008/03/20/the-right-to-public-safety/#comment-530 If you are interested in more specific detail about this case, check here: http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=DC_v._Heller You have access to just about everything on this page. If you are interested in more specific detail about this case, check here: http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=DC_v._Heller
You have access to just about everything on this page.

]]> By: Mark Rubin http://www.publicsafetysignals.com/2008/03/20/the-right-to-public-safety/comment-page-1/#comment-525 Mark Rubin Wed, 14 May 2008 03:57:22 +0000 http://www.publicsafetysignals.com/2008/03/20/the-right-to-public-safety/#comment-525 The 2nd Amendment may be the most controversial in the Constitution. Individuals and PACs emphasize the words they deem most relevant…either “A well regulated militia…” or “the right of the people to…”. However, as in most cases, the interpretation of the Amendment by the Court does not necessarily reflect the framer’s INTENT, but the politics of the modern day. As I live and work in a state with a concealed carry permit statute, I tend to view the Amendment from an officer-safety perspective. I prefer to be the only one on the scene with a firearm; if this is the case, I would not have need to possibly use it. However, over the past several years (since the inception of the law), I have observed officers change their patrol tactics in response to the increased possibility of encountering an armed person, even on something as routine as a traffic stop; unsnapped holsters on approach, unholstered on a house door approach, etc. While the Bill of Rights is intended to protect the people from government abuses, we must consider the changes in our culture since 1789. One issue will remain constant regardless of the Court’s decision…the two factions will continue to argue over which phrase contained in the Amendment did the framer’s INTEND to emphasize. M. R. Rubin The 2nd Amendment may be the most controversial in the Constitution. Individuals and PACs emphasize the words they deem most relevant…either “A well regulated militia…” or “the right of the people to…”. However, as in most cases, the interpretation of the Amendment by the Court does not necessarily reflect the framer’s INTENT, but the politics of the modern day. As I live and work in a state with a concealed carry permit statute, I tend to view the Amendment from an officer-safety perspective. I prefer to be the only one on the scene with a firearm; if this is the case, I would not have need to possibly use it. However, over the past several years (since the inception of the law), I have observed officers change their patrol tactics in response to the increased possibility of encountering an armed person, even on something as routine as a traffic stop; unsnapped holsters on approach, unholstered on a house door approach, etc. While the Bill of Rights is intended to protect the people from government abuses, we must consider the changes in our culture since 1789. One issue will remain constant regardless of the Court’s decision…the two factions will continue to argue over which phrase contained in the Amendment did the framer’s INTEND to emphasize.

M. R. Rubin

]]> By: Joseph Pascarella http://www.publicsafetysignals.com/2008/03/20/the-right-to-public-safety/comment-page-1/#comment-483 Joseph Pascarella Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:55:09 +0000 http://www.publicsafetysignals.com/2008/03/20/the-right-to-public-safety/#comment-483 Jack, That is a great point. Often firearms control laws are based on a public sentiment at a particularly moment in history. Joe Jack,

That is a great point. Often firearms control laws are based on a public sentiment at a particularly moment in history.

Joe

]]> By: Jack http://www.publicsafetysignals.com/2008/03/20/the-right-to-public-safety/comment-page-1/#comment-472 Jack Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:14:58 +0000 http://www.publicsafetysignals.com/2008/03/20/the-right-to-public-safety/#comment-472 It was quite interesting as I began employment years ago in Federal Probation and Parole (in the District of Columbia) that citizens were not allowed to possess firearms. Apparently, it was a ban instituted during a period when the District was in the midst of a violent and dangerous, drug epidemic. It will be quite interesting to see what the United States Supreme Court decides and how it will ultimately affect Public Safety in the DC Metropolitan area. It was quite interesting as I began employment years ago in Federal Probation and Parole (in the District of Columbia) that citizens were not allowed to possess firearms. Apparently, it was a ban instituted during a period when the District was in the midst of a violent and dangerous, drug epidemic. It will be quite interesting to see what the United States Supreme Court decides and how it will ultimately affect Public Safety in the DC Metropolitan area.

]]>