New York gun law that restricted concealed carry rights blocked by federal judge

[Rucker61]

For 200 years the 2nd didn't give protection rights to individuals.

At the federal level it did; the Bill of Rights wasn't incorporated against the states until the 14th Amendment, and the 2nd wasn't incorporated against the states until McDonald.

Scalia did with Heller and his interpretation of the constitution.

The individual right to keep and bear arms was recognized well before Heller. State constitutions contemporary with the Bill of Rights recognized an individual right.

The Supreme Court decided that a slave could not be a citizen because if he were a citizen, he would be entitled to enjoy all the rights which American citizens enjoy by reason of their citizenship, rights which the "courts would be bound to maintain and enforce," including the rights "to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
Scott v. Sandford, 1857 60 US 691, 705

"The people's right to bear arms, like the rights of assembly and petition, existed long before the Constitution, and is not "in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." This ruling also upheld that all able bodied males are members of the militia (one of three such clear rulings).
U.S. v. Cruikshank, 1876 92 US 542, 553

"All citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserve militia, and the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to disable the people from performing the (militia) duty to the general government."
Presser v. Illinois, 1886 116 US 252

"Individuals have a right to possess and use firearms for self-defense."
U.S. v. Beard, 1895 158 US 550

In 1897 the Supreme Court ruled that the right to arms is an "ancient" and "fundamental" right, a right which was "inherited from our English ancestors" and has existed "from time Immemorial."
Robertson v. Baldwin, 1897 165 US 275

The Supreme Court ruled that that by implication even resident aliens have the right to possess "weapons such as pistols that may be supposed to be needed occasionally for self-defense."
Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 1914 232 US 138

The Supreme Court decided that a person facing a deadly attack may use lethal force in his self-defense, adding "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presense of an uplifted knife."
U.S. v. Brown, 1921 256 US 335

The Supreme Court stated that, the great and essential rights of the people are secured against legislative as well as against executive ambition. They are secured, not by laws paramount to prerogative, but by constitutions paramount to laws." (Chief Justice Hughes quoting James Madison).
Near v. Minnesota, 1931 283 US 697, 714

The Supreme Court ruled that a person enjoys a fundamental right to possess arms until his first conviction for a felony offense.
U.S. v. Lewis, 1980 445 US 95

"The term "the people" as explicitly used in the Second Amendment and elsewhere in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is a term chosen by the Founding Fathers to mean all individuals who make up our national community." U.S. v. Verdugo Urquidez, 1990 No. 88-1353

More:

The Supreme Court's Thirty-Five Other Gun Cases

What the Supreme Court has said about the Second Amendment

davekopel.org

That can change. Individual right to bear arms wasn't there either, until it was. It is the same as the abortion law that gave other constitutional protections that applied, like the right to privacy under those Justices interpretation of that. Then the interpretation changed and it was booted out to the states overnight where women felt the sting of existing ancient abortion ban laws.

The rules of the Supreme court change all the time, the mood, the bias, that's just how it is. The constitution IS only as good as it's interpretation. That's just a fact.

"It could change" is a lousy argument to support "I want it to change".

 

[Bum]

It protected individuals rights from the day it was ratified.

Nope, the ratification of the amendment did.

It was always there.

There is no right to privacy, anywhere in the constitution.

No, the constitution is as good as the words written in it. The plain, unambiguous language of the 2nd A clearly protects the individuals right.

I have read the Second Amendment once or twice; a few things stand out.

The Second Amendment reads:

“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 does not say the right of the state.

People can exist without the state, the state cannot exist without the people....ergo, the Second Amendment is an individual right.
This in addition to the Second militia act of 1792 ( now codified under Federal law as Title 32 U.S. Code 313 )

(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

If you dispute this, please show where this has been repealed.

 

[Michael McMahon]

"Some Oregon Sheriffs are refusing to enforce new gun control laws that ban high-capacity magazines and require permitting systems in order to purchase firearms. One sheriff said he would “fight to the death” to defend his county’s Constitutional rights."

"Infringement on Our Constitutional Rights" - Several Oregon Sheriffs Say They Won't Enforce New Gun Control Laws | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

Some Oregon Sheriffs are refusing to enforce new gun control laws that ban high-capacity magazines and require permitting systems in order to purchase firearms.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Hyper-vigilance can be very useful in gun control zones simply because they still have to contend with violently perverted criminals. Mass gun ownership forces many people to be very defensive simply out of how powerful armed criminals are. Yet if you wanted to enforce gun control on a previous gun zone while remaining just as hyper-masculine, then by all means go out of your way to live in a high-crime neighbourhood. If you want to protect innocent people without committing yourself to the police force then it could still be helpful to live in dangerous areas as if you were patrolling them.

 

[rahl]

I have read the Second Amendment once or twice; a few things stand out.

The Second Amendment reads:

“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 does not say the right of the state.

People can exist without the state, the state cannot exist without the people....ergo, the Second Amendment is an individual right.
This in addition to the Second militia act of 1792 ( now codified under Federal law as Title 32 U.S. Code 313 )

(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

If you dispute this, please show where this has been repealed.

I don’t think you meant to quote me?

 

[Bum]

I don’t think you meant to quote me?

Whoops!
My error....apologies.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

I thought the right wanted to leave shit up to the states?

No.

It is bad when states violate people's civil liberties.

BLAH BLAH BLAH, REPUBLICANS ARE FULL OF SHIT.

Not at all. Republicans are correct for upholding the Second Amendment.

One day it's federal protection and one day it is not. We've had this convo, the constitution is only as good as its interpretation. Your 2nd could be gone overnight.

Only if leftist justices issue a fraudulent ruling that disregards the Constitution.

This is why it is important to vote for Republicans. To prevent that from happening.

The point is: The right is full of shit.

Not at all. It is proper that the Second Amendment be upheld.

Hypocrisy alert. States DON'T really know what's best. Only when it comes to abortion, then they do. Such BS.

The question of whether something is covered by the states or the feds is governed by the Tenth Amendment.

As for abortion, I lack the expertise to comment as to whether it falls under the Ninth Amendment or not. So I won't be commenting much on that question.

It wasn't always there for individuals, and it can not be there in the future.

That is incorrect. Keeping and bearing arms has been an individual right for thousands of years.

and it can not be there in the future. As I said, depends on its interpretation. Right now you have Republican Justices saying it does, but, that could change.

The only legitimate interpretations are ones that uphold the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

The fact that the left hates the Second Amendment and means to issue bogus rulings that will allow it to be violated is a very good reason for people to vote for Republicans.

The constitution is not the bible.

Indeed. The Constitution is much more immutable.

Hypocrisy spew. If you think the state "should" have the rights, then you do. Abortion was protected by the right to privacy until it wasn't, and the SC after 50 years decided it was a state issue.

Like I noted above, I lack the expertise to comment on the Constitutionality of abortion issues.

2A doesn't say anything about individuals' rights to bear arms.

Yes it does.

That was an add-on through the interpretation of the court.

No it wasn't. Keeping and bearing arms has been an individual right for thousands of years.

That could easily change as well. Be careful what you wish for, it might end up biting you in the butt.

Voting for Republicans will prevent the left from violating the Second Amendment.

For 200 years the 2nd didn't give protection rights to individuals.

That is incorrect in all sorts of ways.

First, the Second Amendment doesn't give anything. It merely protects a preexisting right from infringement.

And second, keeping and bearing arms has been an individual right for thousands of years.

Scalia did with Heller and his interpretation of the constitution.

The only thing that Justice Scalia did was begin to uphold the Second Amendment.

That can change.

The best way to prevent the left from violating the Second Amendment is to always vote for Republicans.

Individual right to bear arms wasn't there either, until it was.

Keeping and bearing arms has been an individual right for thousands of years.

The rules of the Supreme court change all the time, the mood, the bias, that's just how it is. The constitution IS only as good as it's interpretation. That's just a fact.

The best way to prevent the left from violating the Second Amendment is to always vote for Republicans.

 

[Bum]

For 200 years the 2nd didn't give protection rights to individuals. Scalia did with Heller and his interpretation of the constitution. That can change. Individual right to bear arms wasn't there either, until it was. It is the same as the abortion law that gave other constitutional protections that applied, like the right to privacy under those Justices interpretation of that. Then the interpretation changed and it was booted out to the states overnight where women felt the sting of existing ancient abortion ban laws.

The rules of the Supreme court change all the time, the mood, the bias, that's just how it is. The constitution IS only as good as it's interpretation. That's just a fact.

The second Amendment isn't going anywhere in our lifetime:

 

[SMTA]

The second Amendment isn't going anywhere in our lifetime:

Yup.
It exists for a very valid reason.