I think the Supreme Court decision about gun regulation this past week will eventually be looked on as one of the stupidest decisions the Supreme Court ever made.
Rather than spending time trying to argue about that stupidity, I suggest that the Supreme Court's
stupidity be turned against the Court in the way I describe below. (This would also turn the Supreme Court's stupidity against stupid gun rights expanders who are high fiving one another over the decision.)
Turning the Supreme Court's stupidity on itself starts right at the core of Justice Clarence Thomas' majority opinion, which says that the Constitution protects “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”
Turning that on the Supreme Court starts with hounding lawmakers to pass laws that allow only open carry of handguns outside the home and that prohibit concealed carry of handguns outside the home.
All such open carry would entail wearing a clearly visible holster where the handgun is holstered.
A citizen would be required to have a license to carry a holstered gun outside the home.
Such open carry requirement would be applied to cars by requiring cars to have a designation on their license plates that the owner keeps a gun in the car (if it is the case that the owner keeps a gun in the car).
Also, the law would provide that any use of a holstered gun other than for self-defense would be prohibited, and also provide for liability if an innocent third party is injured in the course of the handgun being used for self-defense. Further, there would be strict liability if a person's holstered gun gets used by a second party and the second party injures a third party.
There would be an exception that, if a person who carries a holstered handgun desires to be able to use the gun to defend a second party, the person would need to get a special license for that purpose. Even with such a license, a person using the gun to defend a second party would be liable if an innocent third party is injured or killed by the first person with the license
It would be argued to lawmakers that an open carry only law fully vindicates “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home” and also would be protective of citizens who choose not to carry a handgun for self-defense outside of their home.
Such protection could come from various ways.
One way is that citizens without holstered guns seeing citizens with holstered guns may react, "holy cow, do those citizens who think they need holstered guns for self-defense mean that this is a very dangerous place I am in and I need to find another place pronto where other citizens do not feel they need holstered guns."
Alternatively citizens without holstered guns may react by feeling protected by there being other citizens around with holstered guns.
Further, citizens without holstered guns may think the ability of police to protect them will be increased if police can see who has holstered guns and who does not. The police may think that people with holstered guns will not use the guns wrongfully and the police need to be more watchful for persons who are violating the law by carrying concealed weapons.
To accommodate citizens who do not want to be in places where there are citizens with holstered guns, lawmakers should be generous in designating sensitive areas where no guns are permitted. Citizens who carry holstered guns, and who think a designated sensitive area where guns have been prohibited does not qualify for a gun prohibition under the Second Amendment, can appeal to the courts to get a judicial determination regarding the same.
Private parties, such as mall owners, can decide whether citizens with holstered guns shall be allowed on their property or shall be prohibited from being on their property with their holstered guns.
Many societal actors could and should be proactive in surveilling for violations of , and enforcing, the prohibition against concealed carry of handguns outside of the home.
Citizens would be encouraged to report to the police if they know or think another person has violated the concealed carry prohibition.
In connection with every traffic stop, the policeman can and should ask whether there is a gun in the car and make arrests if a person has a gun in the car but does not have a license plate showing person has a gun in the car.
Private parties, such as mall owners, could have and should have security guards at entrances to the mall parking lot who would ask car drivers whether there is a gun in the car and not allow entrance if the private mall owner prohibits all guns on the mall property.
Gun rights expanders who object to laws permitting only open carry of handguns for self-defense outside the home should be pressed hard to make a case why the Second Amendment gives them a constitutional right to concealed carry where open carry is permitted.
I say the Supreme Court has already made one stupid decision about gun regulation.
Let us see if the Supreme Court would be so stupid as to hold that the Second Amendment gives citizens a constitutional right to concealed carry where open carry is permitted.
Keep in mind this sentence from Justice Thomas' majority opinion: "Respondents do not offer any evidence showing that, in the early 18th century or after, the mere public carrying of a handgun would terrify people. In fact, the opposite seems to have been true."
Let the American people in the 21st century register how terrified they are of guns on the streets and whether the American people think their fear is less or more if guns on the street are holstered visible handguns or concealed handguns they cannot see.
The gun rights expanders can argue that Americans are more terrified of guns they can see in holsters than they are terrified of concealed guns they cannot see.
I suspect the gun rights expanders are more interested in how much more concealed guns on the street terrify Americans compared to how much visible holstered guns terrify Americans.
6/26/22
Alabama Law Enforcement Agency & Alabama Sheriffs' Departments and Police Departments [I am sending the below by email or email contact form to ALEA and AL Sheriff and Police Departments]
To: Alabama Law Enforcement Agency, Alabama Sheriffs' Departments and Alabama Police Departments
Subj: Proposal re “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home"
Justice Clarence Thomas' majority opinion in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association case enunciates that the Constitution protects “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”
I have a proposal for how that individual right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home can be fully accommodated and at the same time the proposal will greatly reduce gun violence if it is implemented.
Please read my proposal, and after you have done so, I would like an opportunity to speak by phone or in person to someone in your agency or department concerning my proposal.
Thank you very much for your attention to this.
6/26/22
1:20 pm
Above email sent to ALEA using its website contact form
Reply confirm message received back
"Your message has been sent. "
1:30 pm
Above email sent to Alabama Sheriffs Association using its website contact form
Initial error message said a link could not be in my message. I substituted words "[your website disallowed my putting a link here. I will phone you to give link]".
Reply confirm message received back
"Your form has been submitted successfully."
6/28/22 Email to Birmingham, Vestavia Hills and Mountain Brook police chiefsFrom: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: logginsj@mtnbrook.org <logginsj@mtnbrook.org>; sthurmond@birminghamal.gov <sthurmond@birminghamal.gov>; drary@vhal.org <drary@vhal.org>
Sent: Tue, Jun 28, 2022 7:47 am
Subject: Proposal re “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home"
Dear Birmingham Police Chief Thurmond, Vestavia Hills Police Chief Rary, and Mountain Brook Police Chief Loggins,
Justice Clarence Thomas' majority opinion in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association case enunciates that the Constitution protects “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”
I have a proposal for how that individual right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home can be fully accommodated and at the same time the proposal will greatly reduce gun violence if it is implemented.
My proposal is set out at
https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2022/06/dealing-with-scotus-gun-regulation.html.
Please read my proposal, and after you have done so, I would like an opportunity to speak by phone or in person to someone in your agency or department concerning my proposal.
Thank you very much for your attention to this.
6/28/22 Email to Montgomery, Auburn, Oxford and Opelika police chiefsFrom: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: dalbert@montgomeryal.gov <dalbert@montgomeryal.gov>; canderson@auburnalabama.org <canderson@auburnalabama.org>; Bill.Partridge@OxfordAL.gov <Bill.Partridge@OxfordAL.gov>; shealey@opelika-al.gov <shealey@opelika-al.gov>
Sent: Tue, Jun 28, 2022 10:41 am
Subject: Proposal re “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home"
Dear Montgomery, Auburn, Oxford and Opelika Police Chiefs Albert, Anderson, Partridge and Healey:
Justice Clarence Thomas' majority opinion in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association case enunciates that the Constitution protects “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”
I have a proposal for how that individual right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home can be fully accommodated and at the same time the proposal will greatly reduce gun violence if it is implemented.
My proposal is set out at
https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2022/06/dealing-with-scotus-gun-regulation.html.
Please read my proposal, and after you have done so, I would like an opportunity to speak by phone or in person to someone in your agency or department concerning my proposal.
Thank you very much for your attention to this.
P.S. Thank you, Chief Anderson, for previously replying to me.
6/30/221. Email sent to Jefferson County Sheriff Mark Pettway using email address
info@jeffcosheriffal.com2. Email sent to St. Clair County Sheriff Murray using website contact form
Dear Sheriff Murray,
Subj: Proposal re “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home"
Justice Clarence Thomas' majority opinion in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association case enunciates that the Constitution protects “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”
I have a proposal for how that individual right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home can be fully accommodated and at the same time the proposal will greatly reduce gun violence if it is implemented.
My proposal is set out at ________________ [link deleted; link can be found if internet search is done for "Rob Shattuck: Dealing with SCOTUS gun regulation stupidity"]
Please read my proposal, and after you have done so, I would like an opportunity to speak by phone or in person to someone in your agency or department concerning my proposal.
Thank you very much for your attention to this.
3. Email sent to Montgomery County Sheriff Cunningham using email address
derrickcunningham@mc-ala.org
4. Email sent to Mobile County Sheriff Cochran using email address LSTRANGE@MOBILESO.COM
5. Email (in form of Sheriff Murray email) sent to Madison County Sheriff Turner using website contact form
8/12/22
