Toddler shoots parent dead in Super Market

Manic Moran

whisky_galore wrote: »

'Home Defense' (sic.) is not a good reason to be allowed the priviledge (not the 'right') hold a firearm legally imho.

The irony here is that the concept of "a man's home is his castle" is inherited by both the Irish and US legal systems from the UK. Indeed, in Ireland your home is pretty much the one place you can be in and never be under an obligation to avoid confrontation, a violent one if necessary, due to your Constitutional right to be secure in your home.

There are several concepts at work, here.

Firstly, we have the question of "if you have a right, do you have subsidiary rights?" For example, if you have a right to free speech, do you also have a right to buy books? If so, does a town have the authority to ban bookshops? Generally speaking, the answer is "yes", a right is undermined if you are denied the practical capability of carrying it out. For this reason, for example, in the US, governments cannot allow the purchase of firearms but prohibit ammunition, shooting ranges etc. Our application of the Castle Doctrine here in the US is that in addition to your right to be secure in your home, you have the subsidiary right to purchase some appropriate tools for you to enforce that right. Given both our history and the realities of life in the US, that means firearms. In the US, thus, it is not a privilege, it is a right.

The other question is the societal issue. Ireland's cities are not awash with a plague of criminal violence which the US has. In order to effectively repel intruders in your home in a Ireland, as you have every right to do, what tools are permitted you to actually do it? A decision has been made that an acceptable compromise is that there is a lower limit, and that a small number of homeowners become SOL. It becomes a "greater good/numbers game", which probably is cool for society as a whole, but can really suck for a few individuals in that society who have their options reduced by others.

This is the catch. You have to understand the larger environmental and cultural issues. When I emigrated to the US, I was a firm proponent of the Irish system. Over the years, however, I have come to understand the U.S. system and philosophy better, and firmly believe that it is not wrong or unjustified, and have become a strong advocate for it.

BoatMad

Manic Moran wrote: »

The irony here is that the concept of "a man's home is his castle" is inherited by both the Irish and US legal systems from the UK. Indeed, in Ireland your home is pretty much the one place you can be in and never be under an obligation to avoid confrontation, a violent one if necessary, due to your Constitutional right to be secure in your home.

There are several concepts at work, here.

Firstly, we have the question of "if you have a right, do you have subsidiary rights?" For example, if you have a right to free speech, do you also have a right to buy books? If so, does a town have the authority to ban bookshops? Generally speaking, the answer is "yes", a right is undermined if you are denied the practical capability of carrying it out

.

Thats not the case in many jurisdictions, you may may rights but those rights are not absolute and can and are clearly prescribed .

For this reason, for example, in the US, governments cannot allow the purchase of firearms but prohibit ammunition, shooting ranges etc. Our application of the Castle Doctrine here in the US is that in addition to your right to be secure in your home, you have the subsidiary right to purchase some appropriate tools for you to enforce that right. Given both our history and the realities of life in the US, that means firearms. In the US, thus, it is not a privilege, it is a right.

The US has for historical reasons and often the subject of great debate and runs to SCOTUS a specific amendment to its constitution that allows it to bear arms in self defense, without that the castle doctrine wouldn't be much different then elsewhere.

The other question is the societal issue. Ireland's cities are not awash with a plague of criminal violence which the US has. In order to effectively repel intruders in your home in a Ireland, as you have every right to do

You have no right to repeal intruders per say, in Ireland you cannot forcefully remove mere trespassers. They must be harming or taking your property or you physical well being. The issue of proportion response is also very high, you cannot shoot a burglar merely because he is in the act of burglary.

what tools are permitted you to actually do it? A decision has been made that an acceptable compromise is that there is a lower limit, and that a small number of homeowners become SOL. It becomes a "greater good/numbers game", which probably is cool for society as a whole, but can really suck for a few individuals in that society who have their options reduced by othe

If you are required , under irish law to react, to defend yourself, you are allowed to any tools you like, you could fire a bazooka at him.

what you are not entitled to do is to engage in pre-mediated self defense beyond simple measures. You cannot for example patrol you ground with a gun , merely on the basis that you "might" need self defense.

This is the catch. You have to understand the larger environmental and cultural issues. When I emigrated to the US, I was a firm proponent of the Irish system. Over the years, however, I have come to understand the U.S. system and philosophy better, and firmly believe that it is not wrong or unjustified, and have become a strong advocate for it.

There is no evidence to suggest the US is a more violent society in general. there never has been. proponents of guns, constantly try and present a picture of the common citizen " under siege", because this justifies the gun argument.

The reality is otherwise. There is little difference in the attitude of the average property owner in Ireland or the US, whats different is the availability of guns via the 2nd amendment. In ireland many farmers have guns and will reach for that when they hear a noise in the " barn", not much difference to the US really , as I said the difference is merely a function of a specific amendment rather then anything cultural.

The fact is gun policy in the US is an accident of history, where it not for that constitutional situation, gun law would be similar to Europen nations. I lived in a US state in the 80s that had very very strict gun laws, arguably stricter then many European nations, The relaxing of such laws was due to the various SCOTUS appeals that were taken over the last 30 years,

Manic Moran

BoatMad wrote: »

Thats not the case in many jurisdictions, you may may rights but those rights are not absolute and can and are clearly prescribed

I said "if you are denied the practical capability of carrying it out". That doesn't mean there must be an unlimited capability: The right to free speech does not mean that you have the right to say any thing at any time, in either jurisdiction. The principle again goes in both US and Irish jurisdictions. For example, the same right to free speech which means that the government can't stop Private Eye from printing scathing political commentary in its magazine also means that the government can't stop newsagents from selling it. Similarly, the government cannot impact your right to vote by saying that everyone must vote in Letterkenny. "What are you complaining about, Tralee man? We're not stopping you from voting."

The principles are just as viable in both places. It's a matter of how far down the line you want to take it.

The US has for historical reasons and often the subject of great debate and runs to SCOTUS a specific amendment to its constitution that allows it to bear arms in self defense, without that the castle doctrine wouldn't be much different then elsewhere.

The doctrine itself isn't all that much different. The difference is the ability for the resident to actually carry out that doctrine. Here in California, for example, we have two helpful additions on top of the doctrine. (1) We're allowed own firearms, and (2) any intruder is presumed by default to be a threat to the safety of the resident. But the fundamental doctrine is the same: You have the right to be secure in your house. Indeed, that legal protection is stronger in Ireland: The Irish courts apply the Constitutional right to security at home as against everyone, government and private individual both (article 40.5). The US doctrine is purely one of common law inherited from the UK, and the Constitutional protections against search (4th Amendment) apply only to the government. But US common law has more teeth than the Irish Constitutional protection.

You have no right to repeal intruders per say, in Ireland you cannot forcefully remove mere trespassers. They must be harming or taking your property or you physical well being.

This is not true, if you're talking about your dwelling and associated structures (as opposed to just your land). Quoting the Court of Criminal Appeal:
Although he is not liable to be killed by the householder simply for being a burglar, he is an aggressor and may expect to be lawfully met with retaliatory force to drive him off or to immobilise or detain him and end the threat which he offers to the personal rights of the householder and his or her family or guests.

(It's "per se," by the way)

The issue of proportion response is also very high, you cannot shoot a burglar merely because he is in the act of burglary.

Somewhat true. You may certainly not kill the burglar at will, though Irish law specifically states that "The use of force shall not exclude the use of force causing death." However, the resident is given a fair bit of benefit of the doubt. The statute states "It is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held but in considering whether the person using the force honestly held the belief, the court or the jury, as the case may be, shall have regard to the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for the person so believing and all other relevant circumstances.." Judge Hardiman states in plainer English: "But it must always be borne in mind that the burglar must take the occupant as he finds him and that in many cases it will in practice take the deployment of grossly disproportionate force, or evidence of actual malice (as in the well known Martin case in Great Britain) to fix the householder with liability. He or she has, after all, been deliberately subjected to an experience which will shock even the most robust and might make many irrational with terror.

If you are required , under irish law to react, to defend yourself, you are allowed to any tools you like, you could fire a bazooka at him.

If you happened to legally have a bazooka, sure. Does any private citizen in the country happen to have a legally owned bazooka in their house? As I said, "what tools are permitted you", not "what tools may you use." Irish jurisdiction specifically prohibits the acquisition and retention of firearms for the use of defense of the home. The right to bazooka someone if, in fact it proved necessary, is redundant and a dead letter. I, similarly, cannot bazooka someone in my house because I am not legally permitted one. The difference is I -am- legally permitted my semi-automatic pistol. Fortunately, there are very few circumstances where a bazooka would do the job that a pistol wouldn't, but quite a few that a pistol would do the job but a baseball bat wouldn't.

There is no evidence to suggest the US is a more violent society in general. there never has been. proponents of guns, constantly try and present a picture of the common citizen " under siege", because this justifies the gun argument.

Erm. Have you seen our murder and violent crime rates? Per capita, we're four times higher in the US for murder, the US rape rate is about 3.5 times higher, the US robbery (as opposed to burglary, but including mugging) rate is just under twice that of Ireland. It's not 'warzone', but it's not nirvana either.

The reality is otherwise. There is little difference in the attitude of the average property owner in Ireland or the US, whats different is the availability of guns via the 2nd amendment.

Well, the 2nd Amendment, and about 43 State Constitutions.

In ireland many farmers have guns and will reach for that when they hear a noise in the " barn", not much difference to the US really , as I said the difference is merely a function of a specific amendment rather then anything cultural.

Do you not find a certain internal contradiction that nobody minds if a farmer who happens to have a shotgun reaches for it for his own protection, but heaven forbid that a city resident should keep a usable firearm nearby? If, as a principle, armed protection is acceptable in Ireland, why is the city dweller's protection considered to be less valuable simply because of his or her geographic location?

The fact is gun policy in the US is an accident of history, where it not for that constitutional situation, gun law would be similar to Europen nations. I lived in a US state in the 80s that had very very strict gun laws, arguably stricter then many European nations, The relaxing of such laws was due to the various SCOTUS appeals that were taken over the last 30 years

I don't believe the Czech Republic has a Constitutional right, but basically anyone can carry a concealed firearm there. It is a 'shall-issue' jurisdiction, which, unlike the US, issues permits to foreigners. So you, as a 21-year-old Irishman, can fly to Prague, fill out some forms, pass your tests, and you cannot be denied the permit to carry your sidearm. (The word 'pistol' comes from old Czech, incidentally). Some 200,000 licenses to carry are currently on issue there, and there are very few restrictions: you can go to schools, bars, etc (though drinking is not on). Prague is one of the safest cities in Europe by crime rate. I do not currently live in a shall-issue jurisdiction here in California, my ability to carry is purely at the discretion of my county Sheriff.

However, I think that absent the various Constitutional protections, the US is more likely to have been similar to Canada, given the similar realities of life in the two North American countries. If I live in Toronto or Vancouver, and I have a basic firearms license (pretty similar to the basic handgun license one can get in California), I can tootle down to the shop, buy a Steyr AUG (semi-auto version of the rifle you see Irish soldiers carrying), and take it home, without registering the rifle with anyone, let alone the police. Indeed, we Americans are a tad jealous of Canadian rifle owners as they can own things we can't: For years, we would see Canadians shooting Tavor rifles (Israeli military rifle) which were prohibited to us in the US due to protectionist laws. (IMI has finally set up a line here in the US). Similarly, pretty much anyone in Canada can set about buying a handgun, by passing an extra test, although in fairness, pistols are registered. That said, both rifles and pistols are registered at point of sale here in California too. So overall, not a huge practical difference.

SCOTUS hadn't directly addressed firearms laws before 2006.