• 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!

Federal appeals court says states can restrict open carry of firearms

NWRatCon said:
1) The Court of Appeals decision is very well supported in the history of the Constitution, history of the regulation of firearms, and general legal analysis (in contrast, Heller is a very poorly reasoned opinion, and should be overturned, but is unlikely to be in the near term, given the ideological makeup of the current Court); 2) the Supreme Court, I believe, is likely to avoid taking the case, even though a number of ideologues on the Court would like to expand Heller's idiotic reasoning and poor historical analysis, because they can't get into an analysis of this situation without completely upending Heller and exposing its obvious weakness.
Click to expand...
It's easy to say things like this. Time to back it up. How is the Ninth Circuit's decision "is very well supported in the history of the Constitution, history of the regulation of firearms, and general legal analysis" and how is Heller a product of " idiotic reasoning and poor historical analysis"? Please be specific and cite sources.
 
NWRatCon said:
No, I touched on it, then ignored it because it was not germane to the topic and invited a separate discussion. I was explicit about that. There is a separate thread that it is germane to, as I noted.
Click to expand...
Yeah...we went down that path until, as I wrote...you ran out of road.

And here we are...once you couldnt address it without damaging your own argument, you bailed.

🤷 Noted.
 
snakestretcher said:
Is there a "well maintained" militia anywhere in the US?
Click to expand...
The US government has been remiss in supporting militias. They should be issuing AR-15s, not trying to ban them. :rolleyes:
But the question is moot because (for the third time in this thread):

The Supreme Court has very clearly stated that militias have nothing to do with it, hence arguments about militias are pointless.

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.
SCOTUS, DC v Heller, page 1 [emphasis added]
 
natman said:
The US government has been remiss in supporting militias. They should be issuing AR-15s, not trying to ban them. :rolleyes:
But the question is moot because (for the third time in this thread):

The Supreme Court has very clearly stated that militias have nothing to do with it, hence arguments about militias are pointless.

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.
SCOTUS, DC v Heller, page 1 [emphasis added]
Click to expand...
And yet 2A makes no mention of 'self defense' anywhere. The arguments over the interpretation of the 2A won't go away any time soon. In any event why would anyone want a 'militia' in the first place? A bunch of fat, untrained and disorganised weekend warriors, camping up a mountain somewhere in their ridiculous camos?
 
snakestretcher said:
And yet 2A makes no mention of 'self defense' anywhere. The arguments over the interpretation of the 2A won't go away any time soon. In any event why would anyone want a 'militia' in the first place? A bunch of fat, untrained and disorganised weekend warriors, camping up a mountain somewhere in their ridiculous camos?
Click to expand...
The arguments over the 2A is fine, trying to pass laws that go against enshrined (as interpreted by the USSC) law is not.
 
When all's said and done, when all of the arguments, many unsupportable or just downright false, have been reposted for the umpteenth time, one truth remains.

Our present laws and their level of enforcement result in the on-going carnage of gunshot deaths.

On average, a gunshot death occurs in the United States of America roughly every 20 minutes, every day.

Regards, stay safe 'n well ... 'n un-shot.
 
snakestretcher said:
And yet 2A makes no mention of 'self defense' anywhere. The arguments over the interpretation of the 2A won't go away any time soon. In any event why would anyone want a 'militia' in the first place? A bunch of fat, untrained and disorganised weekend warriors, camping up a mountain somewhere in their ridiculous camos?
Click to expand...

We should start a program to introduce the militia folks to the war reenactment, and paint ball folks. LARPing is a powerful drug.
 
snakestretcher said:
And yet 2A makes no mention of 'self defense' anywhere.
Click to expand...
I provided a quote from the Supreme Court that covers the relationship of both self defense and militias to the Second Amendment. Here, I'll provide it again:

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.
SCOTUS, DC v Heller, page 1 [emphasis added]

The Second Amendment protects the right to use a firearm for lawful purposes. Self defense is one of them.

snakestretcher said:
The arguments over the interpretation of the 2A won't go away any time soon.
Click to expand...
Not as long as anti-constitutionalists continue to believe that their opinions are more important than the Supreme Court's.

snakestretcher said:
In any event why would anyone want a 'militia' in the first place? A bunch of fat, untrained and disorganised weekend warriors, camping up a mountain somewhere in their ridiculous camos?
Click to expand...
What part of "unconnected with service in a militia" requires further explanation? Arguments about militias are pointless.
 
natman said:
I provided a quote from the Supreme Court that covers the relationship of both self defense and militias to the Second Amendment. Here, I'll provide it again:

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.
SCOTUS, DC v Heller, page 1 [emphasis added]

The Second Amendment protects the right to use a firearm for lawful purposes. Self defense is one of them.


Not as long as anti-constitutionalists continue to believe that their opinions are more important than the Supreme Court's.


What part of "unconnected with service in a militia" requires further explanation? Arguments about militias are pointless.
Click to expand...
And yet there is no specific mention of self-defense in the 2A, nor even a hint, irrespective of the interpretation of the SC. Supreme Court rulings are not set in stone and can be overruled.
 
snakestretcher said:
And yet there is no specific mention of self-defense in the 2A, nor even a hint, irrespective of the interpretation of the SC. Supreme Court rulings are not set in stone and can be overruled.
Click to expand...
How often has that happened in the myriad attempts?
 
snakestretcher said:
And yet there is no specific mention of self-defense in the 2A, nor even a hint, irrespective of the interpretation of the SC.
Click to expand...
It's entirely reasonable to say that the Second protects the right to use a firearm for lawful purposes. It would hardly be sensible to say that you can keep and bear arms, but you can't use them lawfully.

Self defense is a lawful purpose. Therefore it's protected by the Second. It's as simple as that.

snakestretcher said:
Supreme Court rulings are not set in stone and can be overruled.
Click to expand...
Yes, those grapes probably are sour.
 
natman said:
It's entirely reasonable to say that the Second protects the right to use a firearm for lawful purposes. It would hardly be sensible to say that you can keep and bear arms, but you can't use them lawfully.

Self defense is a lawful purpose. Therefore it's protected by the Second. It's as simple as that.


Yes, those grapes probably are sour.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
It's entirely reasonable to assume one knows precisely what 2A means, just as it is entirely reasonable to assume what it doesn't-and that's a lot simpler when no provision for self-defense is mentioned. That's the interpretation made by the Supreme Court, and that decision can be overruled.
 
snakestretcher said:
Is there a "well maintained" militia anywhere in the US?
Click to expand...
National guard, USMC, Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Game and Wildlife officer, FBI... we have enough for sure. I'm sure I'm leaving some out.
 
snakestretcher said:
Yes, but I'm sure you understand I was talking about Bubba and the boys.
Click to expand...
Yes. I was showing how those perceived wanna be, dress up and pretend militia's are not needed for the security of the nation as stated in the 2A. And I just listed federal ones and not state and local ones.
 
poweRob said:
National guard, USMC, Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Game and Wildlife officer, FBI... we have enough for sure. I'm sure I'm leaving some out.
Click to expand...
Those (exception of the Nat Guard and probably not them either) are all standing armies as they are all paid by the government.
 
It's entirely reasonable to assume one knows precisely what 2A means, just as it is entirely reasonable to assume what it doesn't-and that's a lot simpler when no provision for self-defense is mentioned. That's the interpretation made by the Supreme Court, and that decision can be overruled.
Click to expand...

Okay. Would you say that a citizen's right to keep and bear arms is infringed upon if they cannot do so outside their own home? Because that has been ruled to be such repeatedly.

Hawaii may issue concealed permits and now is refusing open carry, they are interfering in the rights of its citizens. If Hawaii had shall issue as their permit status, the law could more than likely stand but may issue means the government can deny all access with rationale given.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Okay. Would you say that a citizen's right to keep and bear arms is infringed upon if they cannot do so outside their own home? Because that has been ruled to be such repeatedly.

Hawaii may issue concealed permits and now is refusing open carry, they are interfering in the rights of its citizens. If Hawaii had shall issue as their permit status, the law could more than likely stand but may issue means the government can deny all access with rationale given.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about self-defense, specifically-and no provision for that is made in 2A.
 
snakestretcher said:
I'm talking about self-defense, specifically-and no provision for that is made in 2A.
Click to expand...
The pedantry is strong in this one.

So, in your world, you can own a weapon, and carry a weapon, but if you use it to defend yourself, then it should be so ruled illegal with the USSC? Or are you arguing some other vein? I want to get where you are going so that it can be discussed.
 
snakestretcher said:
And yet there is no specific mention of self-defense in the 2A, nor even a hint, irrespective of the interpretation of the SC. Supreme Court rulings are not set in stone and can be overruled.
Click to expand...
You seem to be unfamiliar with how the Constitution works. It recognizes and protects fundamental rights. It does not attempt to cover every detail. It is unrealistic to expect that self-defense would be explicitly mentioned and even more unrealistic to claim that it's not covered because it's not explicitly mentioned. It's the Supreme Court's job to provide more detail.

The Supreme Court ruled that using a firearm for lawful purposes is protected by the Second. There's nothing radical about that. Self defense is a lawful purpose, so it falls under the Second's umbrella of protection. That's as clear as I can make it.
 
snakestretcher said:
I'm talking about self-defense, specifically-and no provision for that is made in 2A.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about the specific text and it if someone cant keep and bear outside their home, they are unable to exercise their rights.

My point renders yours null and void because to keep and bear allows for self defense and Hawaii isn't allowing the right to be exercised freely.
 
Cope said:
Those (exception of the Nat Guard and probably not them either) are all standing armies as they are all paid by the government.
Click to expand...

2nd Amendment​
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.​

All of them together make it not necessary for militias to secure a free state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom