Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yes... and?Yes.... and...?I carry firearms in order to defend my life.
Alzheimer's sufferer?
#125 (permalink)
The freedom of speech is limited under conditions where the act in question harms others.
Thus, harming others is a legitimate reason to limit the exercise of a right.
The legitimacy of limits on the right to arms should be examined in that context.
__________________
I just thought about how Jillian will have no clue as to what any of this means.Consider too:In Heller the court ruled there is a fundamental right to self-defense; and as the handgun is the most common form of self-defense chosen by Americans, its possession is Constitutionally protected.
Heller refused to allow the ban on handguns - the class of gun most used to commit crimes - in a city with a high crime rate.
That is, the ban on handguns, in the worst context possible, did not pass any level of scrutiny available to the court.
Given that, there's no argument that bans on guns less often used in crime in areas with less crime will pass similar scrutiny.
Yes... and?Yes.... and...?
Alzheimer's sufferer?
#125 (permalink)
The freedom of speech is limited under conditions where the act in question harms others.
Thus, harming others is a legitimate reason to limit the exercise of a right.
The legitimacy of limits on the right to arms should be examined in that context.
__________________
The point was that NO right exists beyond the point where it harms someone else, and so restrictions on actions beyond that point do not infringe on the right in question.
The 2nd doesn't protect you if you murder someone with a gun for exactly the same reason the 1st doesnt protect you if you slander them.
Almost.So that we are clear, my possessing a gun NEVER infringes on any of your rights.Yes... and?Alzheimer's sufferer?
#125 (permalink)
The freedom of speech is limited under conditions where the act in question harms others.
Thus, harming others is a legitimate reason to limit the exercise of a right.
The legitimacy of limits on the right to arms should be examined in that context.
__________________
The point was that NO right exists beyond the point where it harms someone else, and so restrictions on actions beyond that point do not infringe on the right in question.
The 2nd doesn't protect you if you murder someone with a gun for exactly the same reason the 1st doesnt protect you if you slander them.
The ONLY occassion where your rights might be adversely affected are if I unlawfully used my firearm in a manner which caused you actual physical harm.
Correct?
Almost.So that we are clear, my possessing a gun NEVER infringes on any of your rights.Yes... and?
The point was that NO right exists beyond the point where it harms someone else, and so restrictions on actions beyond that point do not infringe on the right in question.
The 2nd doesn't protect you if you murder someone with a gun for exactly the same reason the 1st doesnt protect you if you slander them.
The ONLY occassion where your rights might be adversely affected are if I unlawfully used my firearm in a manner which caused you actual physical harm.
Correct?
Also included is an event where you unlawfully use your firearm in a manner which places me in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Firing it up in the air while in a populated area.An example of that would be..............?Almost.So that we are clear, my possessing a gun NEVER infringes on any of your rights.
The ONLY occassion where your rights might be adversely affected are if I unlawfully used my firearm in a manner which caused you actual physical harm.
Correct?
Also included is an event where you unlawfully use your firearm in a manner which places me in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Firing it up in the air while in a populated area.An example of that would be..............?Almost.
Also included is an event where you unlawfully use your firearm in a manner which places me in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Pointing it at me while demanding my money.
Almost.OK we are in agreement.Firing it up in the air while in a populated area.An example of that would be..............?
Pointing it at me while demanding my money.
The ONLY occassion where your rights might be adversely affected are if I unlawfully used my firearm in a manner which caused you actual physical harm.
The activists found the holy grail in 2008 when the Supreme Courts 5 to 4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller said the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right to own a firearm unconnected to military service. The court followed it up with McDonald v. Chicago two years later, holding that the amendment applies not just to gun control laws passed by Congress but to local and state laws as well. The decisions were seen as a green light to challenge gun restrictions across the country, and the lawsuits have come raining down more than two a week, according to the anti-gun Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. But it is the Brady Center that is crowing about the results.
Three years and more than 400 legal challenges later, courts so far have held that the Supreme Courts ruling in Heller was narrow and limited, and that the Second Amendment does not interfere with the peoples right to enact legislation protecting families and communities from gun violence, the center said in a report optimistically titled Hollow Victory? Even those challenging gun restrictions acknowledge that the courts have been unwilling to expand upon the basic right that most people agree Heller bestowed: the ability to keep a handgun in ones home for self-defense purposes. The subsequent rulings clearly highlight the struggles lower courts are having after receiving the Supreme Courts guidance in Heller and McDonald, said Antigone Peyton, an Alexandria lawyer. Theyre afraid to be out front on the law.
As Marylands highest court, the Court of Appeals, put it: If the Supreme Court . . .meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly. If the court has more to say, two men from opposite sides of the Potomac River are hoping it will accept their cases in order to do so. In the Maryland case, Charles F. Williams Jr. is challenging his 2008 conviction in Prince Georges County of violating the states prohibition on wearing, carrying or transporting a firearm in public without a permit. Williams had his legally acquired gun in a bag as he traveled from his girlfriends home to his own. Williams acknowledges that he had not applied for a permit. But his attorney, Stephen Halbrook, says that shouldnt matter: the Maryland law is so restrictive that it basically says ordinary people cant get one. He argues in his petition that the law violates the Supreme Courts analyses and plain statements in Heller and McDonald that the right to bear arms exists outside the home.
MORE
Granny says dey'll have to pry her Mossburg 12ga. from her cold, dead hands...
Cases lining up to ask Supreme Court to clarify Second Amendment rights
A funny thing has happened in the three years since gun-rights activists won their biggest victory at the Supreme Court. Theyve been on a losing streak in the lower courts.
The activists found the holy grail in 2008 when the Supreme Courts 5 to 4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller said the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right to own a firearm unconnected to military service. The court followed it up with McDonald v. Chicago two years later, holding that the amendment applies not just to gun control laws passed by Congress but to local and state laws as well. The decisions were seen as a green light to challenge gun restrictions across the country, and the lawsuits have come raining down more than two a week, according to the anti-gun Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. But it is the Brady Center that is crowing about the results.
Three years and more than 400 legal challenges later, courts so far have held that the Supreme Courts ruling in Heller was narrow and limited, and that the Second Amendment does not interfere with the peoples right to enact legislation protecting families and communities from gun violence, the center said in a report optimistically titled Hollow Victory? Even those challenging gun restrictions acknowledge that the courts have been unwilling to expand upon the basic right that most people agree Heller bestowed: the ability to keep a handgun in ones home for self-defense purposes. The subsequent rulings clearly highlight the struggles lower courts are having after receiving the Supreme Courts guidance in Heller and McDonald, said Antigone Peyton, an Alexandria lawyer. Theyre afraid to be out front on the law.
As Marylands highest court, the Court of Appeals, put it: If the Supreme Court . . .meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly. If the court has more to say, two men from opposite sides of the Potomac River are hoping it will accept their cases in order to do so. In the Maryland case, Charles F. Williams Jr. is challenging his 2008 conviction in Prince Georges County of violating the states prohibition on wearing, carrying or transporting a firearm in public without a permit. Williams had his legally acquired gun in a bag as he traveled from his girlfriends home to his own. Williams acknowledges that he had not applied for a permit. But his attorney, Stephen Halbrook, says that shouldnt matter: the Maryland law is so restrictive that it basically says ordinary people cant get one. He argues in his petition that the law violates the Supreme Courts analyses and plain statements in Heller and McDonald that the right to bear arms exists outside the home.
MORE
Granny says dey'll have to pry her Mossburg 12ga. from her cold, dead hands...
Cases lining up to ask Supreme Court to clarify Second Amendment rights
A funny thing has happened in the three years since gun-rights activists won their biggest victory at the Supreme Court. Theyve been on a losing streak in the lower courts.
The activists found the holy grail in 2008 when the Supreme Courts 5 to 4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller said the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right to own a firearm unconnected to military service. The court followed it up with McDonald v. Chicago two years later, holding that the amendment applies not just to gun control laws passed by Congress but to local and state laws as well. The decisions were seen as a green light to challenge gun restrictions across the country, and the lawsuits have come raining down more than two a week, according to the anti-gun Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. But it is the Brady Center that is crowing about the results.
Three years and more than 400 legal challenges later, courts so far have held that the Supreme Courts ruling in Heller was narrow and limited, and that the Second Amendment does not interfere with the peoples right to enact legislation protecting families and communities from gun violence, the center said in a report optimistically titled Hollow Victory? Even those challenging gun restrictions acknowledge that the courts have been unwilling to expand upon the basic right that most people agree Heller bestowed: the ability to keep a handgun in ones home for self-defense purposes. The subsequent rulings clearly highlight the struggles lower courts are having after receiving the Supreme Courts guidance in Heller and McDonald, said Antigone Peyton, an Alexandria lawyer. Theyre afraid to be out front on the law.
As Marylands highest court, the Court of Appeals, put it: If the Supreme Court . . .meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly. If the court has more to say, two men from opposite sides of the Potomac River are hoping it will accept their cases in order to do so. In the Maryland case, Charles F. Williams Jr. is challenging his 2008 conviction in Prince Georges County of violating the states prohibition on wearing, carrying or transporting a firearm in public without a permit. Williams had his legally acquired gun in a bag as he traveled from his girlfriends home to his own. Williams acknowledges that he had not applied for a permit. But his attorney, Stephen Halbrook, says that shouldnt matter: the Maryland law is so restrictive that it basically says ordinary people cant get one. He argues in his petition that the law violates the Supreme Courts analyses and plain statements in Heller and McDonald that the right to bear arms exists outside the home.
MORE
Sad to see that even when the court rules that the lower courts will ignore the precedent set. They are supposed to be following what the SCOTUS set.
Liberals often seem to want to forget there is a Second Amendment, but I support it. Not because I am a hunter or anything like that. I have heard supporters of this amendment describe it in terms of freedom from the potential of a tyrannical government. I think this makes sense.
My only question is based on this premise where is the line in terms of the regulation of weapons in the hands of the civilian population?
