SCOTUS leaves gun carry limits in place

[Rustic]

How the hell is that voter fraud ??

This is what the GOP wants : Mr Smith is 80 years old , has voted in the same place for 50 years . Everyone in town knows him. He goes to vote and is asked for an ID . He pulls out his drivers license . Has his name and picture . Same address as ever .

Can he vote ?...... NOPE ! Ya see it's expired since he stopped driving 10 years ago! Screw off old man, you'd just vote for the Dems anyway !

Why should the same guy have to present his id for a firearm purchase? Every time

You need to quit falling down the fucking well

 

[Timmy]

How the hell is that voter fraud ??

This is what the GOP wants : Mr Smith is 80 years old , has voted in the same place for 50 years . Everyone in town knows him. He goes to vote and is asked for an ID . He pulls out his drivers license . Has his name and picture . Same address as ever .

Can he vote ?...... NOPE ! Ya see it's expired since he stopped driving 10 years ago! Screw off old man, you'd just vote for the Dems anyway !

Why should the same guy have to present his id for a firearm purchase? Every time

You need to quit falling down the fucking well

If you lose your ID . Are all your guns taken away ? You lose your right to bear arms ?

 

[Rustic]

How the hell is that voter fraud ??

This is what the GOP wants : Mr Smith is 80 years old , has voted in the same place for 50 years . Everyone in town knows him. He goes to vote and is asked for an ID . He pulls out his drivers license . Has his name and picture . Same address as ever .

Can he vote ?...... NOPE ! Ya see it's expired since he stopped driving 10 years ago! Screw off old man, you'd just vote for the Dems anyway !

Why should the same guy have to present his id for a firearm purchase? Every time

You need to quit falling down the fucking well

If you lose your ID . Are all your guns taken away ? You lose your right to bear arms ?

The second firearms are purchased they are none of the federal government business... as it should be.
Please quit falling down the well

 

[Timmy]

How the hell is that voter fraud ??

This is what the GOP wants : Mr Smith is 80 years old , has voted in the same place for 50 years . Everyone in town knows him. He goes to vote and is asked for an ID . He pulls out his drivers license . Has his name and picture . Same address as ever .

Can he vote ?...... NOPE ! Ya see it's expired since he stopped driving 10 years ago! Screw off old man, you'd just vote for the Dems anyway !

Why should the same guy have to present his id for a firearm purchase? Every time

You need to quit falling down the fucking well

If you lose your ID . Are all your guns taken away ? You lose your right to bear arms ?

The second firearms are purchased they are none of the federal government business... as it should be.
Please quit falling down the well

Oh so not having a fancy ID means your voting rights are gone but not your gun rights .

 

[Rustic]

How the hell is that voter fraud ??

This is what the GOP wants : Mr Smith is 80 years old , has voted in the same place for 50 years . Everyone in town knows him. He goes to vote and is asked for an ID . He pulls out his drivers license . Has his name and picture . Same address as ever .

Can he vote ?...... NOPE ! Ya see it's expired since he stopped driving 10 years ago! Screw off old man, you'd just vote for the Dems anyway !

Why should the same guy have to present his id for a firearm purchase? Every time

You need to quit falling down the fucking well

If you lose your ID . Are all your guns taken away ? You lose your right to bear arms ?

The second firearms are purchased they are none of the federal government business... as it should be.
Please quit falling down the well

Oh so not having a fancy ID means your voting rights are gone but not your gun rights .

I don't know about other states, but getting an ID here in South Dakota is far from fancy - it takes all of a few minutes it is absolutely free…

These fucking morons are so damn lazy and they don't deserve to vote apparently... lol

 

[OKTexas]

I have never understood the left's irrational fear of citizens being able to defend themselves against criminals. When they passed Constitutional Carry in Kansas, the left went absolutely crazy and made up all sorts of insane predictions. Of course none of them came true.

Its about the elite's fears of a corrupt system being overthrown.

no it is good they passed this up

with a 4-4 split in the court

why take a chance on kennedy

soon enough it will be a solid 5-4

or perhaps a 6-3 if things go well

then it is time to revisit the issue

example of why not to trust kennedy

Supreme Court Limits Rights Of Property Owners

Kennedy’s opinion was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts filed a fiery dissent, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-214_f1gj.pdf

The question I didn't see answered was how the county treated the two lots for taxation, did they send one assessment for both lots or were they assessed separately and were they titled separately? I only read the syllabus, maybe those issues were addressed in the descents.


.

 

[radical right]

How the hell is that voter fraud ??

This is what the GOP wants : Mr Smith is 80 years old , has voted in the same place for 50 years . Everyone in town knows him. He goes to vote and is asked for an ID . He pulls out his drivers license . Has his name and picture . Same address as ever .

Can he vote ?...... NOPE ! Ya see it's expired since he stopped driving 10 years ago! Screw off old man, you'd just vote for the Dems anyway !

Why should the same guy have to present his id for a firearm purchase? Every time

You need to quit falling down the fucking well

If that man still has the military ID issued while he served in the military in WWII, that would be a valid ID, along with something to show his current address, ex: a tax bill, and it satisfies all ATF requirements to buy a firearm.

https://www.atf.gov/file/83651/download

18 U.S.C. 922(t)(1)(C): IDENTIFICATION OF TRANSFEREE

 

[jon_berzerk]

Check it out:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is rejecting yet another call to decide whether Americans have a constitutional right to carry guns with them outside their homes.

The justices on Monday left in place an appeals court ruling that upheld the San Diego sheriff's strict limits on issuing permits for concealed weapons.

The high court decided in 2008 that the Constitution guarantees the right to a gun, at least for self-defense at home.

But the justices have refused repeated pleas to spell out the extent of gun rights in the United States, allowing permit restrictions and assault weapons bans to remain in effect in some cities and states.

More than 40 states already broadly allow gun owners to be armed in public.


In my view this is the way it ought to be, localities should be the ones to decide the criteria for who gets to carry a gun out in public. Assault weapons are already banned, have been for decades so I don't get that unless they're talking about semi-auto AK-47 type weapons that can fire hundreds of bullets in a matter of a few minutes.

In the case of carry laws, it can't be too restrictive or unreasonable. That San Diego sheriff is an elected official, so if the voters don't want that law they can vote the guy out or move elsewhere.

Added: didn't know where to put this thread, and didn't see any other one on the same thing. Move it as needed.

And you would be wrong......outside of felons and the dangerously mentally ill, allowing states to set limits on law abiding people exercising their 2nd Amendment Right is unConstitutional......the state, following your belief could rule that people could not vote unless they pass a test created by the local government...would that be okay with you?

This case will have to be picked up later when actual judges are sitting instead of the left wingers we currently have....

Nothing is unconstitutional until the SCOTUS says it is, although you and I and everyone else is entitled to our opinion on that. Seems to me that local circumstances ought to carry the day when it comes to restrictions on carry laws, which BTW I note that you yourself included a few (felons and mentally ill). Who is to say what other criteria might be considered constitutional? That' why we have elections and referendums. And it's not a state law, it's a local sheriff imposing these limits, right? Sorta like an executive ordet hat can be repealed or replaced by the next sheriff. I don't have a problem with that, although I admit I do not know just how restrictive those limits are.

And voting is a separate and distinct issue, far apart from carry laws. Nobody is saying you can't have a gun, just like nobody is saying you can't vote either.

is that for just that right

or do you believe local jurisdictions have the authority to curb other rights as well

Just that right, but I've never been a fan of a one size fits all gov't. I realize that federal law trumps state and local, and there are some basic rights such as speech and religion that ought to be standard no matter where you live. Not that gun ownership isn't a basic right, but I think there's a difference between the right to own a weapon and keep it in your house and the right to carry. But every right has it's own limitations, even the basic ones. I dunno what San Diego is doing, but I do believe that local jurisdictions ought to have the ability to modify federal as necessary to fit their own circumstances. If there's a conflict then the SCOTUS ought to review the case and make a call.

so that being the case your point is unconstitutional

 

[jon_berzerk]

How the hell is that voter fraud ??

This is what the GOP wants : Mr Smith is 80 years old , has voted in the same place for 50 years . Everyone in town knows him. He goes to vote and is asked for an ID . He pulls out his drivers license . Has his name and picture . Same address as ever .

Can he vote ?...... NOPE ! Ya see it's expired since he stopped driving 10 years ago! Screw off old man, you'd just vote for the Dems anyway !

Why should the same guy have to present his id for a firearm purchase? Every time

You need to quit falling down the fucking well

--LOL

 

[jon_berzerk]

How the hell is that voter fraud ??

This is what the GOP wants : Mr Smith is 80 years old , has voted in the same place for 50 years . Everyone in town knows him. He goes to vote and is asked for an ID . He pulls out his drivers license . Has his name and picture . Same address as ever .

Can he vote ?...... NOPE ! Ya see it's expired since he stopped driving 10 years ago! Screw off old man, you'd just vote for the Dems anyway !

Why should the same guy have to present his id for a firearm purchase? Every time

You need to quit falling down the fucking well

If you lose your ID . Are all your guns taken away ? You lose your right to bear arms ?

The second firearms are purchased they are none of the federal government business... as it should be.
Please quit falling down the well

Oh so not having a fancy ID means your voting rights are gone but not your gun rights .

HARRISONBURG, Va. — A man paid to register Virginia voters prior to the 2016 Presidential Election will spend at least 100 days in prison for submitting the names of deceased individuals to the Registrar’s Office.

“In July 2016 Spieles’ job was to register as many voters as possible and reported to Democratic Campaign headquarters in Harrisonburg,” a U.S. Attorney’s Office spokesperson said. “In August 2016, Spieles was directed to combine his registration numbers with those of another individual because their respective territories overlapped. After filling out a registration form for a voter, Spieles entered the information into a computer system used by the Virginia Democratic Party to track information such as name, age, address and political affiliation. Every Thursday an employee/volunteer hand-delivered the paper copies of the registration forms to the Registrar’s Office in Harrisonburg.”

Later that month, someone at the Registrar’s Office called police after another employee saw a name they recognized on a registration form.

The name was the deceased father of a Rockingham County Judge.

“The Registrar’s Office discovered multiple instances of similarly falsified forms when it reviewed additional registrations. Some were in the names of deceased individuals while others bore incorrect middle names, birth dates, and social security numbers,” the spokesperson continued. “The Registrar’s Office learned that the individuals named in these forms had not in fact submitted the new voter registrations. The assistant registrar’s personal knowledge of the names of some of the individuals named in the falsified documents facilitated the detection of the crime.

“Spieles later admitted that he prepared the false voter registration forms by obtaining the name, age, and address of individuals from “walk sheets” provided to him by the Virginia Democratic Party, fabricating a birth date based on the ages listed in the walk sheet, and fabricating the social security numbers. Spieles admitted that he created all 18 fraudulent forms himself and that no one else participated in the crime.”
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Harrisonburg Police Department investigated the crime.

 

[2aguy]

And you would be wrong......outside of felons and the dangerously mentally ill, allowing states to set limits on law abiding people exercising their 2nd Amendment Right is unConstitutional......the state, following your belief could rule that people could not vote unless they pass a test created by the local government...would that be okay with you?

This case will have to be picked up later when actual judges are sitting instead of the left wingers we currently have....

You mean like local state issued voter ID LAWS you righties love so much ?

Quit falling down the well
You have to have a valid ID to buy a firearm… Dip shit

So? The point is you argue that there can't be limits on the 2nd , but then want all kinds of voting limits .

Did our founding fathers have to show a specific state ID when they voted ?

Wait a minute
How is asking a person to prove via ID who they are and if they are indeed eligible to vote limiting anyone's legal right to vote?

Oh yeah it's not.

It's limited when you ask for a specific form of ID designed to surpress the vote .

Now I ask you . How does a gun registry limit your 2nd amendment rights ?

Because a registry is used to ban and confiscate guns...as they did in Britain in the 1990s, Australia in the 1990s and Germany in the 1930s........the first step to banning and confiscation is knowing who has the guns so they can't hide them, or report them stolen when the ban and confiscation is implemented.....it took the Germans less than 20 years to go from registration to confiscation....and then gas chambers...

 

[2aguy]

I have never understood the left's irrational fear of citizens being able to defend themselves against criminals. When they passed Constitutional Carry in Kansas, the left went absolutely crazy and made up all sorts of insane predictions. Of course none of them came true.

Its about the elite's fears of a corrupt system being overthrown.

no it is good they passed this up

with a 4-4 split in the court

why take a chance on kennedy

soon enough it will be a solid 5-4

or perhaps a 6-3 if things go well

then it is time to revisit the issue

The bright spot is Gorsuch signed on to the dissent by Thomas....which has to make the gun grabbers really pissed off.....

Vedder Holsters Daily Digest: A Gorsuch Win, a Language Alert and One Little Flap - The Truth About Guns

Given his dissent in the Peruta non-decision . . . Gorsuch appointment looks like a win for gun-rights supporters

Then-Judge Neil Gorsuch hadn’t written anything squarely dealing with the Second Amendment when he was nominated to the Supreme Court; and while it seemed likely that he’d take a relatively broad view of gun rights (just based on his being a conservative, in an era when conservative jurists tend to lean in that direction), that was just a guess. We now have more evidence, from his vote joining Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent from denial of certiorari in Peruta v. California — he, like Thomas (and, before his death, Justice Antonin Scalia), seems to be a strong gun-rights supporter, indeed likely more so than some of the other conservative justices. Like it (as I do) or not, but that’s the information we now have.

 

[2aguy]

Check it out:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is rejecting yet another call to decide whether Americans have a constitutional right to carry guns with them outside their homes.

The justices on Monday left in place an appeals court ruling that upheld the San Diego sheriff's strict limits on issuing permits for concealed weapons.

The high court decided in 2008 that the Constitution guarantees the right to a gun, at least for self-defense at home.

But the justices have refused repeated pleas to spell out the extent of gun rights in the United States, allowing permit restrictions and assault weapons bans to remain in effect in some cities and states.

More than 40 states already broadly allow gun owners to be armed in public.


In my view this is the way it ought to be, localities should be the ones to decide the criteria for who gets to carry a gun out in public. Assault weapons are already banned, have been for decades so I don't get that unless they're talking about semi-auto AK-47 type weapons that can fire hundreds of bullets in a matter of a few minutes.

In the case of carry laws, it can't be too restrictive or unreasonable. That San Diego sheriff is an elected official, so if the voters don't want that law they can vote the guy out or move elsewhere.

Added: didn't know where to put this thread, and didn't see any other one on the same thing. Move it as needed.

And you would be wrong......outside of felons and the dangerously mentally ill, allowing states to set limits on law abiding people exercising their 2nd Amendment Right is unConstitutional......the state, following your belief could rule that people could not vote unless they pass a test created by the local government...would that be okay with you?

This case will have to be picked up later when actual judges are sitting instead of the left wingers we currently have....

Nothing is unconstitutional until the SCOTUS says it is, although you and I and everyone else is entitled to our opinion on that. Seems to me that local circumstances ought to carry the day when it comes to restrictions on carry laws, which BTW I note that you yourself included a few (felons and mentally ill). Who is to say what other criteria might be considered constitutional? That' why we have elections and referendums. And it's not a state law, it's a local sheriff imposing these limits, right? Sorta like an executive ordet hat can be repealed or replaced by the next sheriff. I don't have a problem with that, although I admit I do not know just how restrictive those limits are.

And voting is a separate and distinct issue, far apart from carry laws. Nobody is saying you can't have a gun, just like nobody is saying you can't vote either.

is that for just that right

or do you believe local jurisdictions have the authority to curb other rights as well

Just that right, but I've never been a fan of a one size fits all gov't. I realize that federal law trumps state and local, and there are some basic rights such as speech and religion that ought to be standard no matter where you live. Not that gun ownership isn't a basic right, but I think there's a difference between the right to own a weapon and keep it in your house and the right to carry. But every right has it's own limitations, even the basic ones. I dunno what San Diego is doing, but I do believe that local jurisdictions ought to have the ability to modify federal as necessary to fit their own circumstances. If there's a conflict then the SCOTUS ought to review the case and make a call.

Sorry...you are just wrong. If you apply what you believe to other rights, then local governments could charge a tax to vote and require a test...after all, even the Right to vote has to be limited....right?

 

[JBond]

And you would be wrong......outside of felons and the dangerously mentally ill, allowing states to set limits on law abiding people exercising their 2nd Amendment Right is unConstitutional......the state, following your belief could rule that people could not vote unless they pass a test created by the local government...would that be okay with you?

This case will have to be picked up later when actual judges are sitting instead of the left wingers we currently have....

Nothing is unconstitutional until the SCOTUS says it is, although you and I and everyone else is entitled to our opinion on that. Seems to me that local circumstances ought to carry the day when it comes to restrictions on carry laws, which BTW I note that you yourself included a few (felons and mentally ill). Who is to say what other criteria might be considered constitutional? That' why we have elections and referendums. And it's not a state law, it's a local sheriff imposing these limits, right? Sorta like an executive ordet hat can be repealed or replaced by the next sheriff. I don't have a problem with that, although I admit I do not know just how restrictive those limits are.

And voting is a separate and distinct issue, far apart from carry laws. Nobody is saying you can't have a gun, just like nobody is saying you can't vote either.

is that for just that right

or do you believe local jurisdictions have the authority to curb other rights as well

Just that right, but I've never been a fan of a one size fits all gov't. I realize that federal law trumps state and local, and there are some basic rights such as speech and religion that ought to be standard no matter where you live. Not that gun ownership isn't a basic right, but I think there's a difference between the right to own a weapon and keep it in your house and the right to carry. And every right has it's own limitations, even the basic ones. I dunno what San Diego is doing, but I do believe that local jurisdictions ought to have the ability to modify federal law

is that for just that right or do you believe local jurisdictions have the authority to curb other rights as well

Just that right, but I've never been a fan of a one size fits all gov't. I realize that federal law trumps state and local, and there are some basic rights such as speech and religion that ought to be standard no matter where you live. Not that gun ownership isn't a basic right, but I think there's a difference between the right to own a weapon and keep it in your house and the right to carry. But every right has it's own limitations, even the basic ones. I dunno what San Diego is doing, but I do believe that local jurisdictions ought to have the ability to modify federal as necessary to fit their own circumstances. If there's a conflict then the SCOTUS ought to review the case and make a call.

Can you articulate why you do not believe citizens have the right to defend themselves away from their home? Or maybe you do believe they have the right and I misinterpreted your post. I don't believe security and self defense should be location based.

I never said citizens don't have the right to defend themselves away from home, and I am not too sure the right to keep and bear arms extends to the right to carry a gun out in public. Has the SCOTUS ruled on that? Is carrying a firearm a right or a privilege? Not sure. IMHO it should be up to the locals to determine what criteria to use for who can carry and who can't. Security and self defense ought to be a local call, I am not a fan of the federal gov't telling everybody what they can and cannot do. So long as whatever restrictions that are put in place are not so broad as to deny just about everybody the permission to carry, it should be up to the locals to use the democratic process to change the current official position.

The ability to to defend should not be based on location.

 

[toobfreak]

I have never understood the left's irrational fear of citizens being able to defend themselves (against criminals).

The answer is simple. Just as in the old adage that a pickpocket watches other people's hands, a Liberal knows he cannot trust himself or be trusted with a firearm, and so concludes the same holds true for all others.

 

[2aguy]

And you would be wrong......outside of felons and the dangerously mentally ill, allowing states to set limits on law abiding people exercising their 2nd Amendment Right is unConstitutional......the state, following your belief could rule that people could not vote unless they pass a test created by the local government...would that be okay with you?

This case will have to be picked up later when actual judges are sitting instead of the left wingers we currently have....

Nothing is unconstitutional until the SCOTUS says it is, although you and I and everyone else is entitled to our opinion on that. Seems to me that local circumstances ought to carry the day when it comes to restrictions on carry laws, which BTW I note that you yourself included a few (felons and mentally ill). Who is to say what other criteria might be considered constitutional? That' why we have elections and referendums. And it's not a state law, it's a local sheriff imposing these limits, right? Sorta like an executive ordet hat can be repealed or replaced by the next sheriff. I don't have a problem with that, although I admit I do not know just how restrictive those limits are.

And voting is a separate and distinct issue, far apart from carry laws. Nobody is saying you can't have a gun, just like nobody is saying you can't vote either.

is that for just that right

or do you believe local jurisdictions have the authority to curb other rights as well

Just that right, but I've never been a fan of a one size fits all gov't. I realize that federal law trumps state and local, and there are some basic rights such as speech and religion that ought to be standard no matter where you live. Not that gun ownership isn't a basic right, but I think there's a difference between the right to own a weapon and keep it in your house and the right to carry. And every right has it's own limitations, even the basic ones. I dunno what San Diego is doing, but I do believe that local jurisdictions ought to have the ability to modify federal law

is that for just that right or do you believe local jurisdictions have the authority to curb other rights as well

Just that right, but I've never been a fan of a one size fits all gov't. I realize that federal law trumps state and local, and there are some basic rights such as speech and religion that ought to be standard no matter where you live. Not that gun ownership isn't a basic right, but I think there's a difference between the right to own a weapon and keep it in your house and the right to carry. But every right has it's own limitations, even the basic ones. I dunno what San Diego is doing, but I do believe that local jurisdictions ought to have the ability to modify federal as necessary to fit their own circumstances. If there's a conflict then the SCOTUS ought to review the case and make a call.

Can you articulate why you do not believe citizens have the right to defend themselves away from their home? Or maybe you do believe they have the right and I misinterpreted your post. I don't believe security and self defense should be location based.

I never said citizens don't have the right to defend themselves away from home, and I am not too sure the right to keep and bear arms extends to the right to carry a gun out in public. Has the SCOTUS ruled on that? Is carrying a firearm a right or a privilege? Not sure. IMHO it should be up to the locals to determine what criteria to use for who can carry and who can't. Security and self defense ought to be a local call, I am not a fan of the federal gov't telling everybody what they can and cannot do. So long as whatever restrictions that are put in place are not so broad as to deny just about everybody the permission to carry, it should be up to the locals to use the democratic process to change the current official position.

Read Heller, they talk about the ability to carry a weapon ......

Here.....some specific references to carrying a weapon for self defense...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf



Page 21...

Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.

--------------



We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

--------

n Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

---



3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

-----------




-------------

In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry ing a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s armsbearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.”




As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (by the law professor and former Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.”



-----------

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms






--------






participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.


And what about concealed and open carry?

From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry

-----
------

Page 19

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.
---------

And about the millitia.....


p.38

In the famous fugitive-slave case of Johnson v. Tompkins, 13 F. Cas. 840, 850, 852 (CC Pa. 1833), Baldwin, sitting as a circuit judge, cited both the Second Amendment and the Pennsylvania analogue for his conclusion that a citizen has “a right to carry arms in defence of his property or person, and to use them, if either were assailed with such force, numbers or violence as made it necessary for the protection or safety of either.”
-----------

P.39

In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly.
-------

p.40

Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”
-------



------
P.43

The understanding that the Second Amendment gave freed blacks the right to keep and bear arms was reflected in congressional discussion of the bill, with even an opponent of it saying that the founding generation “were for every man bearing his arms about him and keeping them in his house, his castle, for his own defense.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 362, 371 (1866) (Sen. Davis).


--


The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.
-------


We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Secon
-----


-----

P.58

In Nunn v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a prohibition on carrying concealed weapons). See 1 Ga., at 251. In Andrews v. State, the Tennessee Supreme Court likewise held that a statute that forbade openly carrying a pistol “publicly or privately, without regard to time or place, or circumstances,” 50 Tenn., at 187, violated the state constitutional provision (which the court equated with the Second Amendment). That was so even though the statute did not restrict the carrying of long guns.

See also State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616–617 (1840) (“A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional”).
------------

Handguns.....

It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upperbody strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.

-------

P62-63

Balancing the Right....

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach.

The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie.
-------

The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.

 

[toobfreak]

Baby Steps. First things first.

 

[JBond]

How the hell is that voter fraud ??

This is what the GOP wants : Mr Smith is 80 years old , has voted in the same place for 50 years . Everyone in town knows him. He goes to vote and is asked for an ID . He pulls out his drivers license . Has his name and picture . Same address as ever .

Can he vote ?...... NOPE ! Ya see it's expired since he stopped driving 10 years ago! Screw off old man, you'd just vote for the Dems anyway !

Link or fantasy?

 

[Flash]

[QU

I never said citizens don't have the right to defend themselves away from home, and I am not too sure the right to keep and bear arms extends to the right to carry a gun out in public. Has the SCOTUS ruled on that? Is carrying a firearm a right or a privilege? Not sure. IMHO it should be up to the locals to determine what criteria to use for who can carry and who can't. Security and self defense ought to be a local call, I am not a fan of the federal gov't telling everybody what they can and cannot do. So long as whatever restrictions that are put in place are not so broad as to deny just about everybody the permission to carry, it should be up to the locals to use the democratic process to change the current official position.

The purpose of having a Bill of Rights is to protect Americans from the abuse and oppression of a Democracy where the majority can take away the rights of the individual. Democracy can be just as oppressive as any other form of government when the 51% votes to take away the rights of the 49%.

Our Constitution very clearly says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Some filthy ass elected Mayor or city council should not have the ability to circumvent Constitutional rights.

As far as SCOTUS rulings go they are political just like everything else. It is clear that the Conservatives on the Supreme Court chose not to rule on the abuse to the Bill of Rights as it pertains to the right to keep and bear arms due to the 4-4 split and a unknown swing Justice. That was the smart thing to do.

After Trump appoints a couple of more Conservatives to the Court that will be fixed.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And you would be wrong......outside of felons and the dangerously mentally ill, allowing states to set limits on law abiding people exercising their 2nd Amendment Right is unConstitutional......the state, following your belief could rule that people could not vote unless they pass a test created by the local government...would that be okay with you?

This case will have to be picked up later when actual judges are sitting instead of the left wingers we currently have....

You mean like local state issued voter ID LAWS you righties love so much ?

Quit falling down the well
You have to have a valid ID to buy a firearm… Dip shit

So? The point is you argue that there can't be limits on the 2nd , but then want all kinds of voting limits .

Did our founding fathers have to show a specific state ID when they voted ?

Wait a minute
How is asking a person to prove via ID who they are and if they are indeed eligible to vote limiting anyone's legal right to vote?

Oh yeah it's not.

It's limited when you ask for a specific form of ID designed to surpress the vote .

Now I ask you . How does a gun registry limit your 2nd amendment rights ?

No it's not.

Give me a good reason why the governemnt has to know if I own a gun. And BTW what a criminal might do with a gun is not a good reason.

Why is it that all you control freaks refuse to target actual criminals who use guns (most illegally obtained) to commit crimes?