Post by: Anthony on June 09, 2016, 04:37:09 AM
Quote
During a meeting of the Democratic party's platform drafting committee Wednesday, committee member and businesswoman Bonnie Schaefer said that no one should be able to own a gun.
"I really don't personally think anyone should have a gun," Schaefer said after testimony by Lucia McBath, a spokeswoman for Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. "That's just my own philosophy."
Schaefer, an executive appointed to the committee by Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, said that keeping guns from "mentally ill people and criminals" was not enough.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/democratic-platform-committee-member-no-one-should-have-a-gun/article/2002745
Post by: LevelWing on June 09, 2016, 04:49:31 AM
Quote from: The Weekly Standard
response, McBath said that keeping Americans from guns was not realistic, and called instead for gun reforms that did not "infringe" upon the Second Amendment.Their definition of "infringe" is different than mine.
Progressives realize that gun confiscation isn't practical or realistic but they can do other things like trying to pass the assault weapons ban (again), placing restrictions on ammo, etc. They can make it harder to get and more expensive and try to get people less interested. Every time they try all they end up doing is casing even more sales. Democrats are excellent gun salesmen.
Post by: Mase on June 09, 2016, 11:09:32 AM
Post by: nddons on June 09, 2016, 11:37:53 AM
The Ninth Circus has just ruled that there is no Constitutional right for concealed carry.Words no longer have any meaning.
Keep? Bear? Infringed? Gone.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on June 09, 2016, 11:46:05 AM
The Ninth Circus has just ruled that there is no Constitutional right for concealed carry.
Open carry, problem solved.
Post by: asechrest on June 09, 2016, 11:52:04 AM
The Ninth Circus has just ruled that there is no Constitutional right for concealed carry.
Is there? Interesting reading so far.
Post by: JeffDG on June 09, 2016, 12:15:30 PM
Open carry, problem solved.The decision dodged that issue explicitly.
It may well be that there is a right to carry, and that a state by prohibiting concealed carry is permitting open carry and vice versa, but the arguments presented before the 9th were exclusively about concealed, so they were able to dodge and weave.
Post by: asechrest on June 09, 2016, 01:18:00 PM
The decision dodged that issue explicitly.
It may well be that there is a right to carry, and that a state by prohibiting concealed carry is permitting open carry and vice versa, but the arguments presented before the 9th were exclusively about concealed, so they were able to dodge and weave.
It seems like the challenge needed a different tack. This one appears to have focused solely on the question of whether concealed carry was constitutionally protected. I tend to agree with the 9th Circuit that it's not. But California's CCW rules in combination with their open carry rules seem very strict and ripe for challenge on Second Amendment Grounds. No?
I've just done some initial reading so I may be missing details.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 09, 2016, 01:33:58 PM
apparently people don't have the right to defend themselves.
Post by: asechrest on June 09, 2016, 01:38:21 PM
apparently people don't understand the concept of rights not being infringed
We've been "not understanding" that for centuries.
Post by: nddons on June 09, 2016, 01:39:19 PM
It seems like the challenge needed a different tack. This one appears to have focused solely on the question of whether concealed carry was constitutionally protected. I tend to agree with the 9th Circuit that it's not. But California's CCW rules in combination with their open carry rules seem very strict and ripe for challenge on Second Amendment Grounds. No?What part of "keep" or "bear" is unclear?
I've just done some initial reading so I may be missing details.
I do think Heller is a part of the problem. Let the camel's nose under the tent for "reasonable" restrictions, and as we see today, the "right" disappears when in the wrong hands of the powerful despots.
Post by: JeffDG on June 09, 2016, 01:42:05 PM
What part of "keep" or "bear" is unclear?Not unclear.
I do think Heller is a part of the problem. Let the camel's nose under the tent for "reasonable" restrictions, and as we see today, the "right" disappears when in the wrong hands of the powerful despots.
But the court is right that nothing says "bear concealed"
I think a reasonable read would be that you have a right to carry, and if the state forbids concealed, then you can open carry. Or vice versa.
Post by: nddons on June 09, 2016, 01:42:35 PM
If he did that, I would pay attention.
Post by: Kristin on June 09, 2016, 01:42:52 PM
It seems like the challenge needed a different tack. This one appears to have focused solely on the question of whether concealed carry was constitutionally protected. I tend to agree with the 9th Circuit that it's not. But California's CCW rules in combination with their open carry rules seem very strict and ripe for challenge on Second Amendment Grounds. No?
I've just done some initial reading so I may be missing details.
I disagree about the constitutionality of concealed carry. It should be a right that can only be infringed when governmental action passes the strict scrutiny test. The implicates another right of such obvious and historical origins which is the right of self-defense.
The Senate needs to quit being morons and confirm Garland. We can be sure that whoever Hillary picks will be the fifth vote to overturn the Heller and McDonald cases. At least with Garland, we have a chance.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on June 09, 2016, 01:44:18 PM
Not unclear.
But the court is right that nothing says "bear concealed"
I think a reasonable read would be that you have a right to carry, and if the state forbids concealed, then you can open carry. Or vice versa.
On that point it is silent, therefore no infringement allowed.
Post by: asechrest on June 09, 2016, 01:46:51 PM
What part of "keep" or "bear" is unclear?
The court argued precedent - that there has never been a Second Amendment right to carry concealed. Which, frankly, seems accurate. California, however, also has severe restrictions on open carry. The court opted to narrowly-focus their decision solely on the assertion before them -- that the CCW restrictions were unconstitutional -- instead of a broader evaluation that would show the combination of open and CCW restrictions in California effectively prevent individuals from keeping and bearing arms. I think that broader look would have resulted in a win for the Second.
Post by: nddons on June 09, 2016, 01:55:55 PM
Not unclear.The natural rights guaranteed by the First Amendment don't specify the means or location with which those rights can be exercised. This is right and proper.
But the court is right that nothing says "bear concealed"
I think a reasonable read would be that you have a right to carry, and if the state forbids concealed, then you can open carry. Or vice versa.
Why should the absence of means or location for the exercise of natural rights under the Second Amendment be any different?
I would equate this with a state saying that the free exercise of religion is restricted to the four walls of a Church.
Post by: JeffDG on June 09, 2016, 02:00:49 PM
The natural rights guaranteed by the First Amendment don't specify the means or location with which those rights can be exercised. This is right and proper.
Why should the absence of means or location for the exercise of natural rights under the Second Amendment be any different?
I would equate this with a state saying that the free exercise of religion is restricted to the four walls of a Church.
In the first amendment, the government can generally regulate the "time, place and manner" of speech. I.e., the government can prohibit you from spray painting your message on the walls of the White House.
Post by: nddons on June 09, 2016, 02:04:20 PM
In the first amendment, the government can generally regulate the "time, place and manner" of speech. I.e., the government can prohibit you from spray painting your message on the walls of the White House.Nope. Not the same thing. Spray painting someone's property is vandalism, and would be charged as such. The First Amendment would not enter into the legal discussion, except by a moron who would claim that their right to free speech trumps my right not to incur property damage.
Post by: LevelWing on June 09, 2016, 02:10:45 PM
Not unclear.I think we need to first have a discussion as to whether or not the Constitution is incorporated. If it is, then their ruling is incorrect. "Keep" and "bear" and "shall not be infringed" are the key words to note here.
But the court is right that nothing says "bear concealed"
I think a reasonable read would be that you have a right to carry, and if the state forbids concealed, then you can open carry. Or vice versa.
If it's not incorporated then one can make the argument that California can restrict concealed carry.
Post by: JeffDG on June 09, 2016, 02:11:23 PM
Nope. Not the same thing. Spray painting someone's property is vandalism, and would be charged as such. The First Amendment would not enter into the legal discussion, except by a moron who would claim that their right to free speech trumps my right not to incur property damage.That was an example.
The government can regulate time, place and manner of speech, generally. They can say "You cannot use a bullhorn after 9pm" for example. That's a legal restriction that fits within the 1st Amendment.
What the government may not, generally, do is regulate content. They cannot say "You can only use this park for Tea Party Events" or "You can post X but not Y on this bulletin board"
Post by: JeffDG on June 09, 2016, 02:11:55 PM
I think we need to first have a discussion as to whether or not the Constitution is incorporated. If it is, then their ruling is incorrect. "Keep" and "bear" and "shall not be infringed" are the key words to note here.McDonald v. Chicago ruled that the 2nd Amendment had been incorporated against the states.
If it's not incorporated then one can make the argument that California can restrict concealed carry.
Post by: LevelWing on June 09, 2016, 02:13:24 PM
The Senate needs to quit being morons and confirm Garland. We can be sure that whoever Hillary picks will be the fifth vote to overturn the Heller and McDonald cases. At least with Garland, we have a chance.Confirm one liberal judge before another liberal judge may or may not be confirmed after Hilary may or may not win the election? I think I'd rather wait until November before we get that. What happens if the Senate confirms Garland now and Trump wins?
Post by: LevelWing on June 09, 2016, 02:16:00 PM
McDonald v. Chicago ruled that the 2nd Amendment had been incorporated against the states.Then California does not have the right to restrict concealed carry and the 9th Circuit's ruling is also incorrect.
Post by: asechrest on June 09, 2016, 02:27:12 PM
Quote
We do not reach the question whether the Second
Amendment protects some ability to carry firearms in public,
such as open carry. That question was left open by the
Supreme Court in Heller, and we have no need to answer it
here. Because Plaintiffs challenge only policies governing
concealed carry, we reach only the question whether the
Second Amendment protects, in any degree, the ability to
carry concealed firearms in public. Based on the
overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude
that the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the
scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to
the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of
the general public.
The Second Amendment may or may not protect, to some
degree, a right of a member of the general public to carry
firearms in public. But the existence vel non of such a right,
and the scope of such a right, are separate from and
independent of the question presented here. We hold only
that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the
general public to carry concealed firearms in public.
Among others, they cite a pertinent portion of Heller:
Quote
Like most rights, the right secured by the
Second Amendment is not unlimited. From
Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained
that the right was not a right to keep and carry
any weapon whatsoever in any manner
whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For
example, the majority of the 19th-century
courts to consider the question held that
prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons
were lawful under the Second Amendment or
state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler,
5 La. Ann., at 489–90 [(1850)]; Nunn v. State,
1 Ga., at 251 [(1846)]; see generally 2 Kent,
[Commentaries on American Law (O. Holmes
ed., 12th ed. 1873)] *340, n.2; The American
Students’ Blackstone 84, n.11 (G. Chase ed.
1884).
Interesting read. I'm not through all of it.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 09, 2016, 06:24:20 PM
We've been "not understanding" that for centuries.
quite the contrary. only recently have people had a cranial/rectal inversion.
Post by: asechrest on June 09, 2016, 07:24:50 PM
quite the contrary. only recently have people had a cranial/rectal inversion.
Negative. Since the 1800s, at least.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 10, 2016, 04:00:38 AM
Over 300,000,000 firearms in civilian hands in the USA
Tens of billions of rounds of ammunition manufacturered and expended in the USA.
A tiny tiny tiny percentage of firearms are used to commit murder/homicides. More people are kicked/beaten to death than are killed with rifles (any kind of rifle, not just the evil "assault weapon")
The overwhelming use of firearms is done safely and legally.
Post by: nddons on June 10, 2016, 04:58:57 AM
maths is hard for liberals.But but, think of the children, Bob!!!!!!!!!
Over 300,000,000 firearms in civilian hands in the USA
Tens of billions of rounds of ammunition manufacturered and expended in the USA.
A tiny tiny tiny percentage of firearms are used to commit murder/homicides. More people are kicked/beaten to death than are killed with rifles (any kind of rifle, not just the evil "assault weapon")
The overwhelming use of firearms is done safely and legally.
Post by: Anthony on June 10, 2016, 05:02:27 AM
It seems like the challenge needed a different tack. This one appears to have focused solely on the question of whether concealed carry was constitutionally protected. I tend to agree with the 9th Circuit that it's not. But California's CCW rules in combination with their open carry rules seem very strict and ripe for challenge on Second Amendment Grounds. No?
I've just done some initial reading so I may be missing details.
Remember, the Constitution does NOT give you rights. It protects your natural rights from government infringement. The 2A says the right to keep and near arms shall not be infringed. It does not say on how one can bear arms. Concealed carry, or any method of carry is Constitutional.
Post by: asechrest on June 10, 2016, 05:15:56 AM
maths is hard for liberals.
Over 300,000,000 firearms in civilian hands in the USA
Tens of billions of rounds of ammunition manufacturered and expended in the USA.
A tiny tiny tiny percentage of firearms are used to commit murder/homicides. More people are kicked/beaten to death than are killed with rifles (any kind of rifle, not just the evil "assault weapon")
The overwhelming use of firearms is done safely and legally.
Nice lecture. Didn't help your argument, though.
Post by: Little Joe on June 10, 2016, 05:18:55 AM
Negative. Since the 1800s, at least.Can you educate us a little about this assertion?
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on June 10, 2016, 05:44:25 AM
maths is hard for liberals.
Over 300,000,000 firearms in civilian hands in the USA
Tens of billions of rounds of ammunition manufacturered and expended in the USA.
A tiny tiny tiny percentage of firearms are used to commit murder/homicides. More people are kicked/beaten to death than are killed with rifles (any kind of rifle, not just the evil "assault weapon")
The overwhelming use of firearms is done safely and legally.
Lefties claim it's "impossible" to round up and deport millions of illegal invaders, but confiscation of weapons is "easy."
Post by: asechrest on June 10, 2016, 05:47:35 AM
Remember, the Constitution does NOT give you rights. It protects your natural rights from government infringement. The 2A says the right to keep and near arms shall not be infringed. It does not say on how one can bear arms. Concealed carry, or any method of carry is Constitutional.
If your opinion is that all gun laws are unconstitutional, that is fine. But the courts have not agreed with you for centuries.
Post by: Anthony on June 10, 2016, 05:49:45 AM
If your opinion is that all gun laws are unconstitutional, that is fine. But the courts have not agreed with you for centuries.
I didn't say that, and you know it, however, concealed carry is NOT unreasonable in the opinion of the courts other than the lefty loon states that illegally limit it for the LAW ABIDING.
Post by: asechrest on June 10, 2016, 05:52:21 AM
I didn't say that, and you know it, however, concealed carry is NOT unreasonable in the opinion of the courts other than the lefty loon states that illegally limit it for the LAW ABIDING.
Please read the legal underpinning of this decision and let me know where you disagree.
Post by: Little Joe on June 10, 2016, 05:53:27 AM
If your opinion is that all gun laws are unconstitutional, that is fine. But the courts have not agreed with you for centuries.There you go again! Can you document your assertions?
Remember, there is a difference between making laws about the way people are allowed to use guns and the fact that they are allowed own them. Committing murder with a gun is legitimately illegal. I would even go so far as to say that someone that has committed a crime with a gun shouldn't be allowed to own one. But "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is (as Democrats love to say) "SETTLED" and "The law of the land".
Post by: asechrest on June 10, 2016, 05:57:14 AM
There you go again! Can you document your assertions?
Remember, there is a difference between making laws about the way people are allowed to use guns and the fact that they are allowed own them. Committing murder with a gun is legitimately illegal. I would even go so far as to say that someone that has committed a crime with a gun shouldn't be allowed to own one. But "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is (as Democrats love to say) "SETTLED" and "The law of the land".
See post #24. Did you read it? Did you read the court decision? The opinion speaks to this.
Post by: asechrest on June 10, 2016, 06:00:05 AM
Post by: Anthony on June 10, 2016, 06:22:56 AM
Please read the legal underpinning of this decision and let me know where you disagree.
I don't believe the 9th Circuit Court is unbiased. What they say is often LUNACY to reasonable, common sense thinking.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 10, 2016, 06:25:09 AM
Nice lecture. Didn't help your argument, though.
you can lead a horse to water...
Post by: asechrest on June 10, 2016, 06:29:25 AM
you can lead a horse to water...
I'll take your re-analysis of court cases at any point, now.
Post by: asechrest on June 10, 2016, 06:59:02 AM
I don't believe the 9th Circuit Court is unbiased. What they say is often LUNACY to reasonable, common sense thinking.
Ok, so maybe you believe the precedent they cite is bogus. Any comments?
Post by: asechrest on June 10, 2016, 07:20:07 AM
There you go again! Can you document your assertions?
Remember, there is a difference between making laws about the way people are allowed to use guns and the fact that they are allowed own them. Committing murder with a gun is legitimately illegal. I would even go so far as to say that someone that has committed a crime with a gun shouldn't be allowed to own one. But "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is (as Democrats love to say) "SETTLED" and "The law of the land".
I did some of the work for you, pulling precedent decisions from the Heller case, that speak specifically to the constitutionality of concealed carry laws. These are from the 1800s. The court also cited Blackstone.
For example, the majority of the 19th-century
courts to consider the question held that
prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons
were lawful under the Second Amendment or
state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler,
5 La. Ann., at 489–90 [(1850)]; Nunn v. State,
1 Ga., at 251 [(1846)]; see generally 2 Kent,
[Commentaries on American Law (O. Holmes
ed., 12th ed. 1873)] *340, n.2; The American
Students’ Blackstone 84, n.11 (G. Chase ed.
1884).
The State v J.B. Chandler (http://www.guncite.com/court/state/5la489.html)
Nunn v State (http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/nunn_v_state.txt)
Recognizing that the Second Amendment codifies protection of a pre-existing right, Peruta goes further, citing English and colonial American history on the right to bear arms as relevant to the Second Amendment. They come to the conclusion that concealed carry restrictions were common, and understood to be acceptable since well before the signing of our constitution.
So I'm happy to have a heated debate about this stuff, especially if you're reading along on the Peruta decision, but yelling "shall not be infringed!" is not much of a conversation.
Post by: nddons on June 10, 2016, 08:38:56 AM
See post #24. Did you read it? Did you read the court decision? The opinion speaks to this.I'm reading the opinion. NINE pages on the "Right to Bear Arms in England." Are you fucking kidding me. There is a REASON why the founders felt the need to memorialize the guarantee of this natural right after our Revolution.
Post by: JeffDG on June 10, 2016, 08:50:58 AM
I'm reading the opinion. NINE pages on the "Right to Bear Arms in England." Are you fucking kidding me. There is a REASON why the founders felt the need to memorialize the guarantee of this natural right after our Revolution.The right to bear arms descended to the US from England, like all of the rest of the Bill of Rights.
The Constitution did not create a single right. It recognizes rights, and protects them from government usurpation. The 2nd Amendment did not create the right to keep and bear arms, so a historical review of the state of the law at the time the 2nd was drafted and ratified is entirely reasonable.
Post by: asechrest on June 10, 2016, 08:59:21 AM
I'm reading the opinion. NINE pages on the "Right to Bear Arms in England." Are you fucking kidding me. There is a REASON why the founders felt the need to memorialize the guarantee of this natural right after our Revolution.
Thanks for reading along! You're actually farther than I am, now.
Post by: nddons on June 10, 2016, 12:48:30 PM
The right to bear arms descended to the US from England, like all of the rest of the Bill of Rights.I think you know that I know that the Constitution didn't create any rights.
The Constitution did not create a single right. It recognizes rights, and protects them from government usurpation. The 2nd Amendment did not create the right to keep and bear arms, so a historical review of the state of the law at the time the 2nd was drafted and ratified is entirely reasonable.
As for the historical perspective, part of it came from English law, but some of the inspiration also came from the Magna Carta, among other inspirations.
The pre-constitutional history is interesting, but should not be relevant to the legal discussion unless the Amendment is ambiguous. It is not. Further, we have contemporaneous knowledge of the intent of the drafters of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and that could be relevant.
Whether or not concealed carry was permissible in England in 1299 under Edward I (see page 23/190 of the pdf of this case) is not relevant whatsoever, unless you are looking for a way to justify denying a most logical way to exercise a particular natural right.
Here is some real and relevant history of the Second Amendment. Anti-federalists, including Patrick Henry, George Mason, and Richard Henry Lee were extremely concerned about a standing army, and the "primary evil" was the ability of a standing army to lead to tyranny. They were the drivers of the Bill of Rights.
The Federalists acknowledged this, but felt that the Constitution provided adequate checks against tyranny. Noah Webster said:
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every Kingdom of Europe. The Supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."
THIS is the only history that matters. The Second Amendment was not about guaranteeing the right to defending life and limb against a ghetto thug, though that is a benefit of it. It was about protecting ourselves against tyranny.
In fighting tyranny, did the founders expect us to carry arms in the open while we storm the castle? Does anyone reasonably believe that it was important to the founders that those who bore arms would do so in full sight of everyone around them, like Patton wearing his six shooter in a holster outside of his winter coat? Do we think they cared whether or not an overcoat was worn over ones arms?
This is insanity. I know 7 judges who should be impeached for this ruling.
Post by: nddons on June 10, 2016, 12:50:03 PM
Thanks for reading along! You're actually farther than I am, now.
Post by: Little Joe on June 10, 2016, 12:57:13 PM
It was also NOT about hunting for food, although that was another benefit, or necessity at the time.
The Second Amendment was not about guaranteeing the right to defending life and limb against a ghetto thug, though that is a benefit of it. It was about protecting ourselves against tyranny.
This is insanity. I know 7 judges who should be impeached for this ruling.Thoroughly agree with this too.
Post by: nddons on June 10, 2016, 01:02:31 PM
I agreed with your whole post, but I just want to add (expand on) one thing.It was also NOT about hunting for food, although that was another benefit, or necessity at the time.Good point.
Thoroughly agree with this too.
Post by: JeffDG on June 10, 2016, 01:15:35 PM
I think you know that I know that the Constitution didn't create any rights.I do, but other readers may need the refresher.
As for the historical perspective, part of it came from English law, but some of the inspiration also came from the Magna Carta, among other inspirations.Um...Magna Carta IS English law. There are portions of it that remain in effect today, though most of it has been superseded or repealed as a part of the law.
The pre-constitutional history is interesting, but should not be relevant to the legal discussion unless the Amendment is ambiguous. It is not. Further, we have contemporaneous knowledge of the intent of the drafters of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and that could be relevant.The history of around the writing/ratification of the amendment is entirely relevant. As an originalist, I want to know what the words used meant to those who wrote and ratified the amendment, and that's an exercise in history.
Whether or not concealed carry was permissible in England in 1299 under Edward I (see page 23/190 of the pdf of this case) is not relevant whatsoever, unless you are looking for a way to justify denying a most logical way to exercise a particular natural right.
Here is some real and relevant history of the Second Amendment. Anti-federalists, including Patrick Henry, George Mason, and Richard Henry Lee were extremely concerned about a standing army, and the "primary evil" was the ability of a standing army to lead to tyranny. They were the drivers of the Bill of Rights.Be that as it may, there is no prohibition on a standing army in the Constitution or any amendment thereto. That tends to lead to the conclusion that, while these folks had such opinions, their side lost out. The only concession to their opinions was the 2 year limit on army appropriations.
The Federalists acknowledged this, but felt that the Constitution provided adequate checks against tyranny. Noah Webster said:OK, let's take this for what you said.
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every Kingdom of Europe. The Supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."
THIS is the only history that matters. The Second Amendment was not about guaranteeing the right to defending life and limb against a ghetto thug, though that is a benefit of it. It was about protecting ourselves against tyranny.
In fighting tyranny, did the founders expect us to carry arms in the open while we storm the castle? Does anyone reasonably believe that it was important to the founders that those who bore arms would do so in full sight of everyone around them, like Patton wearing his six shooter in a holster outside of his winter coat? Do we think they cared whether or not an overcoat was worn over ones arms?
This is insanity. I know 7 judges who should be impeached for this ruling.
The 2nd Amendment is about being able to defend the state from tyrany. What about that purpose leads you to the conclusion that the right to carry concealed is embedded in that? Soldiers and militia carry their arms openly, so your justification does not lead to the conclusion that concealed carry was a right that was anticipated by the 2nd Amendment.
Post by: bflynn on June 10, 2016, 01:28:59 PM
Personally I would be OK with not carrying guns IF we could own any weapon and exercise them regularly in a militia environment. But libs will never agree to relax the ownership provisions so it is a moot point.
Post by: JeffDG on June 10, 2016, 01:34:57 PM
The primary reason to carry concealed is because so many people freak out over open carry.
Personally I would be OK with not carrying guns IF we could own any weapon and exercise them regularly in a militia environment. But libs will never agree to relax the ownership provisions so it is a moot point.
Me, looking at the historical context, I think that the 2nd should permit citizens to be armed in similar fashion to the military. That's where the "A well regulated militia...." part comes in. The primary purpose was to have a citizenry armed, and able to be called into service with their personal arms in times of need. If you can't use the same weapons as the military, what good are you?
Now, I know, the strawman will be used "The 2nd doesn't let you have nukes!!!" But I would draw the line at weapons that you, as an individual, can actually keep and bear. So, individual weapons, not crew-served weapons. M-16, great. SAW, not so much. M1A1, ummm...no...
Post by: Little Joe on June 10, 2016, 01:40:06 PM
Makes sense to me.
Me, looking at the historical context, I think that the 2nd should permit citizens to be armed in similar fashion to the military. That's where the "A well regulated militia...." part comes in. The primary purpose was to have a citizenry armed, and able to be called into service with their personal arms in times of need. If you can't use the same weapons as the military, what good are you?
Now, I know, the strawman will be used "The 2nd doesn't let you have nukes!!!" But I would draw the line at weapons that you, as an individual, can actually keep and bear. So, individual weapons, not crew-served weapons. M-16, great. SAW, not so much. M1A1, ummm...no...
Post by: JeffDG on June 10, 2016, 01:42:21 PM
Makes sense to me.Personally, I like it because in a discussion, I lead off with the "shall not be infringe" argument, then when the liberal inevitably brings up the prefactory "militia" clause, I slam the door hard on them
Post by: bflynn on June 10, 2016, 04:38:56 PM
Post by: Kristin on June 12, 2016, 02:14:43 PM
Confirm one liberal judge before another liberal judge may or may not be confirmed after Hilary may or may not win the election? I think I'd rather wait until November before we get that. What happens if the Senate confirms Garland now and Trump wins?
Well an asteroid might hit to and wipe out all life on the planet which would make the issue moot.
One has to play the percentages. The chance of Trump winning is diminishingly small. And Garland is not a liberal, but you can bet that whoever Hillary nominates is going to be pledged to overturn the Heller and McDonald decisions. Garland is not a judicial activist and regardless of how he might have voted on the core question in the first instance, his record is that he is very cautious in his ruling and overturning those decisions would not be cautious.
Post by: Anthony on June 13, 2016, 05:01:01 AM
Well an asteroid might hit to and wipe out all life on the planet which would make the issue moot.
One has to play the percentages. The chance of Trump winning is diminishingly small. And Garland is not a liberal, but you can bet that whoever Hillary nominates is going to be pledged to overturn the Heller and McDonald decisions. Garland is not a judicial activist and regardless of how he might have voted on the core question in the first instance, his record is that he is very cautious in his ruling and overturning those decisions would not be cautious.
Garland is a proven anti 2A, and anti legal gun ownership. He will vote with the far left activists in the court against the 2A taking legally owned guns from LAW ABIDING citizens, NOT the CRIMINALS.
Post by: asechrest on June 13, 2016, 06:45:31 AM
Garland is a proven anti 2A, and anti legal gun ownership. He will vote with the far left activists in the court against the 2A taking legally owned guns from LAW ABIDING citizens, NOT the CRIMINALS.
I think that takes Garland's relatively-slim and somewhat-indirect record on 2A issues and turns it into a W.A.G. about how he'd decide future cases.
Post by: Anthony on June 13, 2016, 06:57:09 AM
I think that takes Garland's relatively-slim and somewhat-indirect record on 2A issues and turns it into a W.A.G. about how he'd decide future cases.
Quote
But the truth is simple. Second Amendment issues have come before Garland, at least four times. He voted anti-gun every time.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/05/01/merrick-garland-guns-supreme-court-second-amendment-column/83670044/
Post by: asechrest on June 13, 2016, 07:33:27 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/05/01/merrick-garland-guns-supreme-court-second-amendment-column/83670044/
Written by: Michael Hammond, general counsel of Gun Owners of America. It is an op-ed with one gentleman's opinion.
I could post a Slate article with opposing opinion, but I won't. Suffice it to say that in the D.C case, his vote along with a conservative judge to re-hear en banc a landmark, precedent-setting case (Heller), tells us nothing about Garland's 2A views. The 2000 FBI records case was not even a 2A case.
Indeed, as far as I can tell, Garland has never directly voted in a 2A opinion. So I'm not sure how anyone knows how he feels about the Amendment.
Post by: Anthony on June 13, 2016, 07:40:13 AM
Post by: asechrest on June 13, 2016, 07:41:12 AM
Then dispute the facts, not the messenger. You can't as they are listed in the Op Ed piece.
I think you forgot to read past the first line of my post: http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=970.msg17264#msg17264
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 13, 2016, 08:16:40 AM
Indeed, as far as I can tell, Garland has never directly voted in a 2A opinion. So I'm not sure how anyone knows how he feels about the Amendment.
but you seem pretty quick to think he will support the 2A.
I submit there is more evidence to be concerned about the 2A than the pollyanna view that he will support our rights.
Post by: asechrest on June 13, 2016, 08:19:42 AM
but you seem pretty quick to think he will support the 2A.I do? News to me!
I submit there is more evidence to be concerned about the 2A than the pollyanna view that he will support our rights.
Maybe. But I submit there is no evidence that: "Garland is a proven anti 2A, and anti legal gun ownership. He will vote with the far left activists in the court against the 2A taking legally owned guns from LAW ABIDING citizens, NOT the CRIMINALS."
Post by: Kristin on June 13, 2016, 10:39:29 AM
Garland is a proven anti 2A, and anti legal gun ownership. He will vote with the far left activists in the court against the 2A taking legally owned guns from LAW ABIDING citizens, NOT the CRIMINALS.
He has never ruled on the issue so he cannot be proven to be anti-2nd Amendment. He is pretty much a blank slate there anyone making the claim otherwise is lying to support a pre-determined political position, won which may well come back and bite them.
Post by: Kristin on June 13, 2016, 10:44:18 AM
but you seem pretty quick to think he will support the 2A.
I submit there is more evidence to be concerned about the 2A than the pollyanna view that he will support our rights.
But this misses the point. The point is that Hillary is guaranteed to nominate Justices who will overturn Heller. And the ones she nominates will be in their 40's, not their 60's, meaning they will be around much, much longer.
You are correct only if you think Trump is sure to win. I don't think he has a proverbial snowballs chance.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 13, 2016, 10:49:25 AM
But this misses the point. The point is that Hillary is guaranteed to nominate Justices who will overturn Heller. And the ones she nominates will be in their 40's, not their 60's, meaning they will be around much, much longer.
You are correct only if you think Trump is sure to win. I don't think he has a proverbial snowballs chance.
The point wasn't missed. I certainly understand the certainty that the corrupt doormat would nominate people without understanding of the Constitution.
The specific point I was discussing was related to the current nominee.
Post by: nddons on June 13, 2016, 11:22:13 AM
I think that takes Garland's relatively-slim and somewhat-indirect record on 2A issues and turns it into a W.A.G. about how he'd decide future cases.Isn't that all we have about anyone seeking a lifetime appointment?
Post by: asechrest on June 13, 2016, 12:04:26 PM
Isn't that all we have about anyone seeking a lifetime appointment?
I'm not sure, actually. I guess it would depend on each nominee's legal history.