• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Says No Right to Concealed Gun Carry

TurtleDude said:
the original intent was to guarantee an individual NATURAL RIGHT that the founders believed all men were endowed with and which pre-existed government, That right being one of free men to be armed as they saw fit

BTW the Constitution contains Absolutely no delegation of any gun control power to the federal government so the second amendment was merely reinforcing something the founders agreed upon but which some of the "anti federalists" worried had to be spelled out
Click to expand...

Your "natural right" mantra is laughable and indefensible. Try that in s court of law and you'll be laughed out.

The intent was to have a prepared civilian MILITIA to guess against a tyrannical government or an invading force until a standing a army could be formed. It was never intended that every Tom, Dick, and Harry pack 24/7.

Do some effing homework before you spout.
 
TurtleDude said:
He's right, you are incorrect. tell me where in the constitution was gun control a power delegated to the federal government and why was that "power" not "discovered" until the administration most hostile to the limits placed on the federal government took power? (140+ years after the document was adopted?)
Click to expand...

Give me an effing break on the BS "where in the Constitution" crap. Read Heller and get back to me grasshopper
 
domer76 said:
Your "natural right" mantra is laughable and indefensible. Try that in s court of law and you'll be laughed out.

The intent was to have a prepared civilian MILITIA to guess against a tyrannical government or an invading force until a standing a army could be formed. It was never intended that every Tom, Dick, and Harry pack 24/7.

Do some effing homework before you spout.
Click to expand...

let see-"effing" homework-like 32 years an attorney, a graduate of one of the top schools in the world, and someone who even top constitutional law professors refer to in lectures on the second amendment? how does that stack up to your studies?

what is laughable is how ignorant you are of constitutional history or theory. I am merely REPORTING what the FOUNDERS BELIEVED and if you aren't able to understand that don't blame me.

Your interpretation is the laughable bannerrhoid movement nonsense that was created when assholes in office wanted to be able to ban guns but knew the constitution didn't allow it

read the writings of St George Tucker, and then the CRUIKSHANK decision and get back to me. where in the constitution did it say that the federal government had any power to tell Tom dick and Harry what they could pack

don't bother looking, even if you could understand that constitution, you won't find it
 
Last edited:
domer76 said:
Give me an effing break on the BS "where in the Constitution" crap. Read Heller and get back to me grasshopper
Click to expand...

you mean the decision that just contradicts your specious and moronic claim that the second amendment wasn't an individual right?
 
domer76 said:
Your "natural right" mantra is laughable and indefensible. Try that in s court of law and you'll be laughed out.

The intent was to have a prepared civilian MILITIA to guess against a tyrannical government or an invading force until a standing a army could be formed. It was never intended that every Tom, Dick, and Harry pack 24/7.

Do some effing homework before you spout.
Click to expand...

The, "the right of the people to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms", part says you're wrong.

The people is The militia.
 
apdst said:
The, "the right of the people to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms", part says you're wrong.

The people is The militia.
Click to expand...

he either is unable to understand or ignores the fact that the founders never believed they were CREATING new rights with the bill of rights. They were merely affirming that

1) citizens had-in their view-certain unalienable natural rights that pre-existed the new federal government

2) that the new government had no delegated powers to interfere with those rights

3) and while not giving the new government any power to interfere with those rights was seen by some as a sufficient bar to the federal government so acting, others-correctly-worried that power hungry assholes who were to come later might pretend that the federal government had such powers and thus the bill of rights was enacted to impose a negative restriction on the government--that being-it could not act in areas it was not given powers to do so
 
apdst said:
The, "the right of the people to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms", part says you're wrong.

The people is The militia.
Click to expand...

Is " Militia" defined in the constitution? Bill of Rights / or by SCOTUS in later rulings?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment
However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, and what level of scrutiny the courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment.

Recent case law since Heller suggests that courts are willing to, for example, uphold

regulations which ban weapons on government property. US v Dorosan, 350 Fed. Appx. 874 (5th Cir. 2009) (upholding defendant’s conviction for bringing a handgun onto post office property);
regulations which ban the illegal possession of a handgun as a juvenile, convicted felon. US v Rene, 583 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (holding that the Juvenile Delinquency Act ban of juvenile possession of handguns did not violate the Second Amendment);
regulations which require a permit to carry concealed weapon. Kachalsky v County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2nd Cir. 2012) (holding that a New York law preventing individuals from obtaining a license to possess a concealed firearm in public for general purposes unless the individual showed proper cause did not violate the Second Amendment.)
Click to expand...

Second Amendment legal definition of Second Amendment
In June 1776, one month before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Virginia became the first colony to adopt a state constitution. In this document, the state of Virginia pronounced that "a well regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State." After the colonies declared their independence from England, other states began to include the right to bear arms in their constitution. Pennsylvania, for example, declared that

the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

The wording of clauses about bearing arms in late-eighteenth-century state constitutions varied. Some states asserted that bearing arms was a "right" of the people, whereas others called it a "duty" of every able-bodied man in the defense of society.
Click to expand...
 
JANFU said:
Is " Militia" defined in the constitution? Bill of Rights / or by SCOTUS in later rulings?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment


Second Amendment legal definition of Second Amendment
Click to expand...

do you understand that the first inquiry that most courts and many politicians ignore is "did the constitution grant the federal government any power to regulate small arms owned by private citizens"?

then ask yourself this

Is it realistic to believe that the power of congress to "regulate commerce among the states" means a power to tell individual citizens what guns they can own or buy? especially in light of the fact that there is not a single document ANYONE can find that even hints that the authors of the constitution and the bill of rights intended such a power and indeed, for the first 100 years after the Constitution, the courts consistently held that the CC did not give congress or the federal government ANY power over individual citizens.
 
TurtleDude said:
do you understand that the first inquiry that most courts and many politicians ignore is "did the constitution grant the federal government any power to regulate small arms owned by private citizens"?

then ask yourself this

Is it realistic to believe that the power of congress to "regulate commerce among the states" means a power to tell individual citizens what guns they can own or buy? especially in light of the fact that there is not a single document ANYONE can find that even hints that the authors of the constitution and the bill of rights intended such a power and indeed, for the first 100 years after the Constitution, the courts consistently held that the CC did not give congress or the federal government ANY power over individual citizens.
Click to expand...

I am off to bed and will answer in the morning.
But a couple of point befre that.
Well regulated militia??? Define
Small arms?? Define
Then we have as seen in the little I have learned, States rights.
 
JANFU said:
I am off to bed and will answer in the morning.
But a couple of point befre that.
Well regulated militia??? Define
Small arms?? Define
Then we have as seen in the little I have learned, States rights.
Click to expand...

well regulated militia-one that has already been formed, elected officers and has a mission

small arms-weapons that individual citizens or militia members would normally be able to keep and bear

examples-1700s

Muskets, pistols, shotguns, rifles, sabers, dirks, poleaxes, spears, rapiers, knives, clubs

stuff that is not ordnance (bombs, grenades, rockets, petards, greek fire) or artillery (cannon, mortars, howitzers)

Examples-today

rifles (of all action types-bolt, lever, break action, semi auto or select fire), carbines (same actions) pistols, Submachine guns (e.g. UZI, Swedish K, Tommy gun, sten gun, or a MP 5) shotguns (all action types), knives, swords, nunchaku, brass knuckles, maces, clubs, PR-24s, ASP batons, teargas dispensers, stun guns,

Ordnance-fragmentation grenades, napalm, thermite grenades, WP Grenades, satchel charges, Claymore mines or similar, IEDs,

Artillery-SAM missiles, TOW Missiles, mortars, LAWs,MAWS and HAWs, cannon (device that fires an explosive projectile) RPGs, Medium or heavy machine guns such as a M2 Browning, howitzers, Tank Guns Like the 120MM smoothbore, self propelled guns, etc
 
TurtleDude said:
let see-"effing" homework-like 32 years an attorney, a graduate of one of the top schools in the world, and someone who even top constitutional law professors refer to in lectures on the second amendment? how does that stack up to your studies?

what is laughable is how ignorant you are of constitutional history or theory. I am merely REPORTING what the FOUNDERS BELIEVED and if you aren't able to understand that don't blame me.

Your interpretation is the laughable bannerrhoid movement nonsense that was created when assholes in office wanted to be able to ban guns but knew the constitution didn't allow it

read the writings of St George Tucker, and then the CRUIKSHANK decision and get back to me. where in the constitution did it say that the federal government had any power to tell Tom dick and Harry what they could pack

don't bother looking, even if you could understand that constitution, you won't find it
Click to expand...

Ask for your money back from your law school. They failed you and your inability to interpret the Second. Poor sap. So much money wasted on a dunce
 
domer76 said:
Your "natural right" mantra is laughable and indefensible. Try that in s court of law and you'll be laughed out.

The intent was to have a prepared civilian MILITIA to guess against a tyrannical government or an invading force until a standing a army could be formed. It was never intended that every Tom, Dick, and Harry pack 24/7.

Do some effing homework before you spout.
Click to expand...

To understand the intent of the Second Amendment is easy. All you have to do is read what our founding fathers themselves wrote:

"The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen ; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press."

~Thomas Jefferson

Seems that you are the one who hasn't done his homework.
 
domer76 said:
Ask for your money back from your law school. They failed you and your inability to interpret the Second. Poor sap. So much money wasted on a dunce
Click to expand...

The 2nd Amendment isn't open to interpretation. It clearly states it's intent.

Every single judge on the 9th circuit court that supported this decision should be impeached.
 
apdst said:
The 2nd Amendment isn't open to interpretation. It clearly states it's intent.

Every single judge on the 9th circuit court that supported this decision should be impeached.
Click to expand...


the idiotic militia rights nonsense has no support in the scholarship, no support from the supreme court (not even the miller case or the dissenters in Heller bought into that idiocy) and is something Bannerrhoid organizations dreamed up to try to get around the complete ban on federal intrusions into our rights
 
apdst said:
The 2nd Amendment isn't open to interpretation. It clearly states it's intent.

Every single judge on the 9th circuit court that supported this decision should be impeached.
Click to expand...

The 2nd says right to bear arms, not hide them.
 
Deuce said:
The 2nd says right to bear arms, not hide them.
Click to expand...

so in your view, carry concealed is not bearing arms? you apparently confuse BARE with BEAR
 
Let me add something here. The Liberals insist that the 2nd Amendment applies only to militias, which means that gun control over people not in militias is Constitutional. Nothing could be further from the truth. To understand the intent of our forefathers when they penned the Constitution, one must read the Federalist Papers for context. Regarding the Second Amendment, freedom to bear arms clearly comes before militias, in that militias can be formed from a populace that owns guns, not the other way around.

Here is something written to that effect by James Madison, from Federalist Number 46:

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."

This clearly states that militias are possible only because Americans have the advantage of being armed in the first place. Now we read the Second Amendment in it's proper context:

"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."

That is correct. The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed - The correct context of this, of course, being that a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, can only be formed from an armed population.

domer76. Thanx for playing. You lose.
 
TurtleDude said:
the idiotic militia rights nonsense has no support in the scholarship, no support from the supreme court (not even the miller case or the dissenters in Heller bought into that idiocy) and is something Bannerrhoid organizations dreamed up to try to get around the complete ban on federal intrusions into our rights
Click to expand...

This illegal ruling is why the Judicial Branch doesn't have the power to interpret The Constitution.

Its scary to know that there are so many fools in this country that agree that the courts have the power to interpret The Constitution however They please.
 
TurtleDude said:
so in your view, carry concealed is not bearing arms? you apparently confuse BARE with BEAR
Click to expand...

I think bear applies, except that there is no right to arm bears. :mrgreen:
 
apdst said:
Yeah...we knew you didn't want to touch that one.
Click to expand...

Uh huh.

Your question was already answered by the very post you quoted, so what exactly do you want added?

I could just as easily ask whether you thought surface to air missiles are "arms"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom