Sensible Erection | Followup: Corcoran's weapons seized by police

Wednesday, 19 January 2011

Followup: Corcoran's weapons seized by police

quote [ Police have seized a “large amount” of weapons and ammunition from an Arlington businessman while investigating if comments he allegedly made online were intended as a threat to U.S. Congressmen and members of the U.S. Senate. ]

HeavyInk.com proprietor loses his firearms license over his controversial blog post.

[politics] [by feldenglas@12:35amGMT] [+10 Good]

Comments

danshyu said @ 12:54am GMT on 19th Jan [Score:1 Insightful]
A lot of these times I wonder why won't some people just keep their mouths shut for their own good. Yes, you have the right to say whatever the hell you wish. But at the age of internet, everything you said can every well be your downfall.

structured_spirits said @ 1:02am GMT on 19th Jan
"Loose lips sink your plans to overthrow the government."

Ankylosaur said @ 1:09am GMT on 19th Jan
They can't make us sit down and shut up. And if they ever were to succeed in doing that, then our republic will be destroyed.

bruceski said @ 2:21am GMT on 19th Jan [Score:2 Insightful]
Rule of the lawyer: never write anything down that you wouldn't want to see in court.

Rule of the politician: never say anything you wouldn't want to see on the news.

Rule of the everyman: never blog anything you wouldn't want to be seen during a job interview in ten years.

arrowhen said @ 3:14pm GMT on 19th Jan
Even better: never blog anything.

f00m@nB@r said @ 3:15pm GMT on 19th Jan
but how will we get our nekkid ex-gf pix?

spite48 said @ 3:28pm GMT on 19th Jan
With a camera?

sacrelicious said @ 1:16am GMT on 19th Jan [Score:5 Insightful]
this never would have happened if he had a gun.

sacrelicious said @ 1:27am GMT on 19th Jan
where's the original link that this is following up on?

gm1970 said @ 5:14am GMT on 19th Jan
http://www.sensibleerection.com/entry.php/82814

foobar said @ 1:53am GMT on 19th Jan
Good. Guns are a privilege, not a right.

sacrelicious said @ 1:58am GMT on 19th Jan
my daddy always rewarded good behavior by giving me a new gun, and punished bad behavior by taking a gun away.

that is, until the day I shot him.

incpenners said @ 2:35am GMT on 19th Jan [Score:1 Informative]
Go read your Constitution.

You obviously don't know your rights.

ENZ said @ 3:05am GMT on 19th Jan [Score:5 Insightful]
What organized militia was this guy a part of?

Thathurt said @ 3:25am GMT on 19th Jan [Score:2 Informative]
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Ankylosaur said @ 4:24am GMT on 19th Jan [Score:4 Insightful]
Unelected activist judges making law from the bench.

fejock said @ 8:43pm GMT on 19th Jan [Score:1 Insightful]
Not really. Read what the second amendment says. You could remove the preposition about why militias are important and it would not change the fundamental meaning.

endopol said @ 7:08pm GMT on 20th Jan
Technically, it's a subordinate clause, but you're right:

As ratified by the States:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It makes no conditions on the right to keep and bear arms, just gives a reason why it's a good idea.

ENZ said @ 4:45am GMT on 19th Jan
Owning one gun for self defense is fine. Owning several can be justified if one is an avid hunter or collector. But having a fully stocked armory goes well beyond simple "home defense".

blackpsypher said @ 4:56am GMT on 19th Jan
I would be curious to see the list of weapons confiscated. I know several collectors who have enough firearms to fit into the 'armory' category.

balzac said @ 5:17am GMT on 19th Jan
I doubt most collectors would have a "fully stocked armory." The difference being how much ammo they have for each type of gun.

The collector mindset is usually to obtain and preserve an item. They would probably only regularly fire a handful of weapons, and stock ammo accordingly.

blackpsypher said @ 6:17am GMT on 19th Jan
"and stock ammo accordingly," you hit the nail right on the head there. Ammo isn't cheap, so when you get a good deal you buy accordingly. If you're going to be spending a day at the range, depending on what and how you're shooting, it's easy to go through several hundred rounds in a day. If this is something you do regularly, having several cases of ammo (read, several thousand rounds of ammo) is not unheard of. Seeing as how the wife and I are both avid shooters, I have to keep twice the amount of ammo available.

"Fully stocked armory," is kind of an arbitrary term, which is why I was wondering what exactly was confiscated. If he has 30 or 40 collectors pieces and four cases of ammo for each of the two or three pieces that he shoots regularly that's one thing, but if he has 10 AKs and six thousand rounds of 7.62x39...that's something completely different.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a gun guy and I recoiled at this asshat's statement after the Arizona incident, but I'd like a few facts to go along with the broad reaching statements that are accompanying the story to be able to put the story into the appropriate perspective.

crom said @ 5:53am GMT on 19th Jan
Did they unearth new data that helped them to resolve this issue of meaning that the country has been arguing about for 200 years? Or did they just "decide" that that's the way it's gonna be from now on?

sanepride said @ 6:18am GMT on 19th Jan
The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution. This is the current interpretation of 5 out of 9 justices.
You can read about the more recent case, arguments, dissent etc. here.

Yes, essentially they did just "decide" that's the way it's gonna be, though it is possible that some future court will overturn these decisions and decide differently.

fejock said @ 9:13pm GMT on 19th Jan
The issue of meaning to which you refer is the difference between the "collective right" and the individual right to own and bear arms.

There have been several Supreme Court cases regarding the Second Amendment stretching back into the early 1800s, but only two, the 2008 and 2010 case, even address this question.

The issue of meaning which you claim the country has been arguing about fro the last 200 years, we have really only been arguing about for, at most, the last 40 at most years.

It is only in the past THREE years that this issue of meaning has reached the Supreme Court.

And yes. Making decisions is what courts do. They would be sort of useless if they only suggested things.

EPT said @ 7:19am GMT on 19th Jan [Score:2 Insightful]
So... you're saying "Go read the Supreme Court decision", not "go read your constitution"?

Out of curiosity, what was the Supreme Court's position on the meaning of 'well-regulated militia', if it was unconnected to bearing arms? Why mention it in the amendment at all?

fejock said @ 8:51pm GMT on 19th Jan
I agree with the idea that it should be enough to go read the constitution.

Good question. As I said above, removing the preposition does not alter the meaning of the statement. Madison was a very smart man. Had he wished to say explicitly that the right to bear arms belongs only to the militia, he damn well would have.

Its not the only confusing part of the Bill of Rights. "Twenty dollars"? Really??

foobar said @ 9:49pm GMT on 19th Jan
If we allow that the writer was intelligent, if he didn't intent to apply the right to bear arms only to militias, then he would not have included that clause. It would only serve to confuse the issue.

sanepride said @ 4:02am GMT on 19th Jan
It must be snowing in hell because I must agree with penners.

The Supreme Court has indeed affirmed that the 'right to bear arms' means exactly that.

Son_of_Sagan said @ 4:43am GMT on 19th Jan
Nope, still hot as far as I can tell. I completely disagree with penners.
Most of the world does not live in the US and does not live under a constitution with an archaic provision that makes the private ownership of guns a right.
For many people around the world, where the private ownership of guns is allowed, it is considered a privilege that comes with a great number of responsibilities.
The few justifications that I have seen for enshrining the right to bear arms in a constitution are, I believe, either conceptually weak and/ or does not hold up to evidence. I genuinely believe that the sooner the US repeals the second amendment the better.

lilmookieesquire said @ 5:07am GMT on 19th Jan
I disagree*.

*I'm for gun rights as long as we can slash the military budget by 80%.

Son_of_Sagan said @ 5:14am GMT on 19th Jan
Restricting gun rights in the US and cutting the US military budget are not mutually exclusive policy objectives. I, for one, am for both.

lilmookieesquire said @ 3:01pm GMT on 19th Jan
And I'm alright with that :D

fejock said @ 9:16pm GMT on 19th Jan
I understand a citizen from another country disliking US military spending, but what do you have against gun rights in the US? You don't live here. Why would you want to restrict our freedoms?

Son_of_Sagan said @ 3:09am GMT on 20th Jan
While, by and large, US domestic policy does not affect me directly, I still reserve the right to comment and critique out of an interest in both politics and public policy. Much the same reason that I think it reasonable for me to comment on subjects like China's human rights record, EU intergration and the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia. I am not likely to visit or live in these places in the near future, but I do reserve the right to formulate and express an informed opinion on topics of my interest.
I, would expect that anyone who did not live in Australia would call bullshit if they saw some aspect of Australian domestic policy that seemed in some ways problematic. Our treatment of refugees is a pretty good start. We can't really hide behind national borders, and I think that it is more important than ever that we are informed about what is going on in our world.
In fact, i think that if more people who were not directly affected by the outcome of a policy issue but with informed and articulate ideas on the issue were given a fair hearing that we would have better outcomes generally.
If some in the American political class were not so obsessed with American Exceptionalism, and analysed the domestic policy of other countries the issues such as the introduction of the health care public option and the repeal of dont ask dont tell would have been no-brainers.

sanepride said @ 5:21am GMT on 19th Jan
Well obviously the 2nd Amendment only applies within the US. I'm not suggesting these rules apply elsewhere. Now whether you agree with the concepts or interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is a different question, but as I mentioned (and cited by Thathurt above) the Supreme Court has affirmed that it does indeed mean that individuals have a right to private gun ownership. You can take exception all you want, but it won't change the circumstances, and you can be dead certain that the 2nd Amendment will never be repealed. There has never even been discussion of it. Even in the wake of the Tucson Massacre there is no chance of any significant gun control legislation seeing the light of day in Congress.
I am not offering opinion here, this is just the way it is.

Son_of_Sagan said @ 8:08am GMT on 19th Jan
You are, of course, completely correct. And, I didn't mean to imply that you were suggesting that the 2nd Amendment applied to anyone but US citizens on US soil.
I agree that, considering the wording of the second amendment, in conjunction with the philosophical and political climate in the US in the 1780's (not to mention the number of explicit statements made by those who actually voted on the Bill of Rights), one would be rather naive to think that the 2nd Amendment means anything other than the right of the people to own and bear arms privately (as per the Supreme Court decision cited by Thathurt).
I also agree that there is no foreseeable prospect of the US ever repealing the 2nd Amendment. I wish that the US would, but I know that any repeal or modification of the 2nd Amendment would be too unpopular to ever make it on to the policy agenda.
But, even given these facts, I think that the assertion of 2nd Amendment rights without the will to enter a thorough exploration of the responsibilities that attend this right is troubling. But as you suggest, there is no foreseeable prospect of even a sensible discussion on meaningful gun control legislation taking place.
I fail to see how possession of a semi-automatic 9mm Glock pistol with a 33-round magazine is a right that someone would need or want to exercise in the modern US. Maybe that is because I am just a bleeding-heart antipodean lefty. But, I also think that it is fair to say that the political zeitgeist of the 1780s is not really relevant to the US in the 2010s, and that the grounds for the then sensible arguments for the 2nd Amendment no longer obtain.

lilmookieesquire said @ 4:39am GMT on 19th Jan
I'd rather have the right to drive.

foobar said @ 5:34am GMT on 19th Jan
Don't you want the government to be able to revoke that for people who can't do it safely?

lilmookieesquire said @ 2:59pm GMT on 19th Jan
I'd rather have gun control quite frankly.
I'd also rather have mass transit while I'm wishing for things that will never happen...

foobar said @ 9:52pm GMT on 19th Jan
Everyone else seems to be able to manage all of that, and universal healthcare.

Hrairoo said @ 7:22am GMT on 19th Jan [Score:1 Underrated]
Why not do both?

foobar said @ 5:33am GMT on 19th Jan
My constitution doesn't say a damn thing about guns.

sanepride said @ 6:39am GMT on 19th Jan
That's nice. You probably live in a less violent country.

TheCooler said @ 1:43pm GMT on 19th Jan
It's just that they forgot to put it in and then began procrastinating on the matter.

Saint said @ 6:57pm GMT on 19th Jan
In Canada we recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.

Also, a healthy appreciation for delicious maple syrup.

ENZ said @ 7:17pm GMT on 19th Jan
I'll bet, it's your only export of worth other than comedians and professional wrestlers.

foobar said @ 9:51pm GMT on 19th Jan
Your president uses our phones. You couldn't keep your lights on or drive your SUV's without our electricity and oil.

sanepride said @ 9:14pm GMT on 19th Jan
I would take exception to the supremacy of god but I can definitely get behind maple syrup.

arrowhen said @ 3:11pm GMT on 19th Jan
He's not a militia.

Xiph0 said @ 7:41am GMT on 19th Jan [Score:1 Insightful]
Corcoran posted a comment online saying “one down 534 to go”

There better be more to the story than just that, or Arlington is about to see a shitstorm of lawsuits.

HoZay said @ 5:07pm GMT on 19th Jan
It does seem a bit heavy-handed. He has a right to be a douche.

Xiph0 said @ 10:27pm GMT on 19th Jan
Yup. Offhand comments like that are made all the time online, it's no reason to revoke a firearms license and seize all of someones guns. But again, there very well may be more to it.

emile said @ 2:39am GMT on 21st Jan
amusingly this is pretty legal in Massachusetts. federal constitutionality aside, the state allows each town's (unelected, non-professionally-adjudicating) chief of police to arbitrarily decide who is suitable (a term with no state-wide official definition) to own guns, what types they may own, and where they can bring them. the state flag has a gun on it. it's quite ironic.

hackiavelli said @ 2:55am GMT on 20th Jan
"It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot indiscriminately. Target only politicians and their staff and leave regular citizens alone."

Don't know what else he wrote. The blog entry appears to be gone.

f00m@nB@r said @ 3:14pm GMT on 19th Jan
"i" before "e" except after "s".

feldenglas said @ 3:50pm GMT on 19th Jan
Right, I missed that day. Thanks.

sacrelicious said @ 10:11pm GMT on 19th Jan
that day is overrated anyway. how can you call something a grammatical rule when it only seems to apply to half of the words it's eligible for?

Fr3nZy said @ 5:54pm GMT on 19th Jan [Score:1 Funny]
I thought the url was apt: http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/arlington/2011/01/blog_post_prompts_police_to_se.html

<jedi mind trick>
This isnt the blog you're looking for
</jedi mind trick>