2nd Amendment Does Not Guarantee Right to Carry Concealed Guns, Court Rules

[RetiredUSN]

I disagree... my point shows that your point is irrelevant. The 2nd Amendment does not say that there can not be restrictions on gun ownership and that is why we have them...

The word " infringed " must not be in the liberal dictionary

 

[Bodi]

The word " infringed " must not be int the liberal dictionary

Guns are legal. What is your point?

It also says that guns are for a well regulated militia but that is not happening...

...and what is "liberal" about what I am arguing? :roll:

 

[RetiredUSN]

Guns are legal. What is your point?

It also says that guns are for a well regulated militia but that is not happening...

...and what is "liberal" about what I am arguing? :roll:

Was I attacking you? I am saying that any decision based on the 2nd amendment......... needs to be defined in words that work accordingly to the wording of the 2nd amendment whether it is in agreement or not..

 

[Bodi]

Was I attacking you? I am saying that any decision based on the 2nd amendment......... needs to be defined in words that work accordingly to the wording of the 2nd amendment whether it is in agreement or not..

No you were not but you referenced "liberalism" to me in an argument/debate with me. What else am I to infer?

I don't see restrictions as an ingringment on gun ownership in the slightest. People can own any number of guns/weapons, just not every thing that they want.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

Depends entirely on how the judges interpret the 2nd Amendment and interpret what is or isn't a restriction that violates the 2nd Amendment.

For instance they could rule that a $10,000 tax on guns is not a violation of the 2nd Amendment...its just a tax that falls with in the federal governments power to tax, just like they did with Obamacare's Mandate.

I would think the argument against that is excessive tax is an infringement.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Nor does it differentiate between good cause and I just feel like it.

Rulings such as this is the number one reason Hillary can't be in charge of Supreme Court nominations.

For many of us libertarian-minded people the choice between Hillary and Trump becomes next to impossible when viewed from the point of SCOTUS appointments.

Trump wants to appoint people who will deprive people of the right to control their own bodies. Hillary wants to appoint people who will deprive people of the right to defend their own bodies.

I could never in good conscience support either.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

It means that the Second Amendment will be "interpreted" to conclude that the only the military has a guaranteed right to bear arms.

That's already been decided in DC v Heller.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

 

[JANFU]

The word " infringed " must not be in the liberal dictionary

How are they infringed?? Just because there are regs, how are they infringed. Unless you believe in open and concealed carry everywhere??
Is that what you call infringed?

 

[JANFU]

That's already been decided in DC v Heller.



https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Thank you for the link

 

[ARealConservative]

Guns are legal. What is your point?

It also says that guns are for a well regulated militia but that is not happening...

...and what is "liberal" about what I am arguing? :roll:

at that time every able bodied male of a certain age was considered milita. They meant for everyone to have guns, and to not infringe on everyone having guns.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

However, this was also in the DC v Heller decision.

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.

So the SCOTUS has determined that the right to keep and bear arms can be limited to the home? Is how the militia (the people) defeated the British, from within their homes?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

The word " infringed " must not be in the liberal dictionary

It wasn't addressed in DC v Heller either. It just states that "unlike most rights, the 2nd Amendment right is not unlimited."

However,

in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller applies not only to the Federal Government, but also to states and municipalities.

This seems to contradict the Heller decision about states being able to prohibit concealed carry.

Second Amendment | Law Library of Congress

 

[Bodi]

at that time every able bodied male of a certain age was considered milita. They meant for everyone to have guns, and to not infringe on everyone having guns.

Agreed... and gun owners today should be a part of an organized state militia as well. That is what the Amendment states.

 

[countryboy]

Agreed... and gun owners today should be a part of an organized state militia as well. That is what the Amendment states.

Please show me where the amendment states that.

 

[Bodi]

Please show me where the amendment states that.

Sure thing: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

 

[countryboy]

Sure thing: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Where does it say' "....gun owners today should be a part of an organized state militia"? As you claimed. English not your strong point?

 

[Bodi]

Where does it say' "....gun owners today should be a part of an organized state militia"? As you claimed. English not your strong point?

:lol:

Show me where I quoted those words indicating that they were being used as a primary source document for evidentuary purposes... thanks.

 

[countryboy]

:lol:

Show me where I quoted those words indicating that they were being used as a primary source document for evidentuary purposes... thanks.

You made the claim, then posted the portion you claimed made your case. It did not. Attempts at obfuscation will not change anything.

 

[JANFU]

You made the claim, then posted the portion you claimed made your case. It did not. Attempts at obfuscation will not change anything.

Show him his error - he quoted directly from the 2 A.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

Where does it say' "....gun owners today should be a part of an organized state militia"? As you claimed. English not your strong point?

"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."

The militia referred to are the people. Militia meant all able bodied citizens.

Congress has shaped the modern militia's structure by exercising its Article I militia powers through a series of statutes. The first such legislation was the Militia Act of 1792. This act codified the traditional view of the militia as consisting of all able-bodied citizens.

Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government.

The resulting colonial militia laws required every able-bodied male citizen to participate and to provide his own arms. Militia control was very localized, often with individual towns having autonomous command systems. Additionally, the colonies placed relatively short training requirements upon their militiamen: as little as four days of training per year.

The colonies did little to change their militias until just prior to the Revolutionary War. When the British attempted to disarm the American populace during 1774-75, citizens formed private militias that were independent of the royal governors' control. With the outbreak of war, the colonial militias composed the bulk of the armies that eventually won independence. The experiences of the Revolutionary War had instilled most Americans with great confidence toward their militias and distrust of standing armies. Many concluded that a standing army was the tool of an absolutist government and that the militia was the proper means for a free people to defend against such a regime. This belief heavily influenced the debates surrounding the drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution.

The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions

http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/Bioterrorism/8Military/milita01.htm

 

[Beaudreaux]

I disagree... my point shows that your point is irrelevant. The 2nd Amendment does not say that there can not be restrictions on gun ownership and that is why we have them...

Bodhi? What part of "shall not be infringed" do you think translates to there can be restrictions just because they didn't use the words "there cannot be restrictions on gun ownership" which, by the way, is the very definition of "..., the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Simple Definition of infringe

1 : to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( chiefly US )

2 : to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)

Infringe | Infringe Definition by Merriam-Webster

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State doesn't mean individual states.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” the Second Amendment says, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” But what did the Framing generation understand “free State” to mean?
1
Some say it meant a “state of the union, free from federal oppression.” As one D.C. Circuit judge put it, “The Amendment was drafted in response to the perceived threat to the ‘free[dom]’ of the ‘State’ posed by a na-
tional standing army controlled by the federal government.”
2
Or as a law-yer for one leading pro-gun-control group wrote, “Presumably, the term ‘free State’ is a reference to the states as entities of governmental authority. Moreover, the reference to the ‘security’ of a free State must have some-thing to do with the need to defend the state as an entity of government.”3

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/freestate.pdf

 

[TurtleDude]

The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia



If appealed will SCOTUS overturn the ruling?
Yes
No
Other- pls explain
Unsure

I doubt the left wants this to come before the court before the election. Heller helped Obama win in 2008. AN anti gun USSC decision would be tough on Hillary

 

[countryboy]

The militia referred to are the people. Militia meant all able bodied citizens.







The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions

http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/Bioterrorism/8Military/milita01.htm

It really doesn't matter what is meant by the word "militia" in the Second Amendment. It is in no way used as a qualifier. The words "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", is unambiguous, and can in no way be misinterpreted by any honest, thinking person.

 

[Fledermaus]

From the article:

[/COLOR][/FONT]

[FONT=georgia, times new roman, times, serif]That "hostile sheriffs" term sounds like something one of those sovereign citizen nutjobs would say. What do they mean by that?[/FONT]

Probably those sheriffs that refuse carry permits out of hand....

Like LA County in the past.