2nd amendment case probably headed to SC

[Rustic]

Second Amendment case Peruta vs. California may be heading to Supreme Court

Anti Gun nut jobs just keep asking for an ass kicking....thank god for President Trump putting a conservative on the SC! We could be dealing with an extremist leftist if Clinton had won.

What sane person doesn't get up every morning and thank a nonexistent entity who lives in the clouds for herr drumph?

Frivolous gun laws are for stupid people to believe in… Are you one of them

 

[Rustic]

There is no "right" to carry concealed weapons enshrined within Amendment II. It is extremely doubtful SCOTUS would even grant certiorari to hear it given the nature of the case and the most recent precedents in Heller just 10 years ago.

Well regulated militia don't need to carry concealed weapons, why do gun lovers?

Why should you care? You have your safe space... snowflake

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

There is no "right" to carry concealed weapons enshrined within Amendment II. It is extremely doubtful SCOTUS would even grant certiorari to hear it given the nature of the case and the most recent precedents in Heller just 10 years ago.

The Heller court avoided the subject, it will have to be addressed sooner or later. You think it won't be if the National Reciprocity Act is passed?

Bullshit, Heller avoided WHAT, and be ******* specific without quibbling, which is your usual fallback.

Regarding the National Reciprocity Act, the first clause of the opening line in the body of the text is, “(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section,...." That will NEVER stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.

Now go **** yourself you dishonest piece of lying shit!

 

[Wyatt earp]

Another fail, despite the bold underlining. Where does it outlaw concealed carry?

Getting tired of duche bags that believe they should be the arbiter of who is allowed to defend themselves. Bunch of brainwashed punks.

Are you really that ******* stupid or are you just playing at it. I don't want to waste my time with either type of fool!

Heller, building upon the precedents in US v. Miller set the legal principle that, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." You don't like that LEGALLY BINDING PRINCIPLE, tough ******* shit and go pound sand, asshole! That's the guiding principle of the law of the land. If the law in San Diego limits concealed carry to specifics needs, it's the LAW THERE and likely meets the legal test, which is very unlikely to be heard by SCOTUS!

Getting tired of duche bags that believe they should be the arbiter of who is allowed to defend themselves.

If you weren't such a miserably offensive, ignorant piece of crap, you may not have need of a weapon to defend yourself, ya ******* jerk! Now go about thy way and haveth carnal relations with thyself!

The Problem....moron....is that California prohibits open carry as well.....and with a concealed carry prohibition they make it impossible for people to exercise their right to carry a weapon for self defense........one or the other, they can't block both....


....I know you assholes see that one line from Heller and you think that allows you to ban every single gun in every place except for the broom closet in your home...and you think that covers the 2nd Amendment....but you have to read the entire heller decision...where they document carrying guns in your pocket.......moron...

From the actual Heller decision, twit...

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.

-----

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

-----

These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia

----

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.

-----

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.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”).
------------

Wow! I see you present a portion of Scalia's history summary in his discussion of the Operative Clause. It's too bloody bad that you didn't read all the way down to the concluding paragraph and absorb Scalia's conclusion on the efficacy and application of Amendment II which blows your entire rant into a pile of steaming shit! Here it is for all you gunner homies.

"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. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause."

It appears that Scalia mentioned that there were limitations to Amendment II multiple times, dipstick, but you just wouldn't buy it and now have embarrassed yourself once again by presenting your ignorance before all.

Have a nice day, Bubba!

Yeah...shit head......as a left wing asshole you read "any sort of confrontation" to mean they can ban carrying guns for any reason they feel like....and that isn't what he is saying considering all of the quotes I listed where he specifically talks about carrying a gun for self defense....

Why are you left wingers so stupid?

You asswipes think that those statements essentially means we can't carry any gun, anywhere, anytime......you are the moron......

--you can't carry a gun to commit murder....moron...

--you can't carry a gun in case you get caught by the homeowner of the home you plan to rob....moron...

you are so dumb...do you practice it, or does it just come naturally?

and that isn't what he is saying considering all of the quotes I listed where he specifically talks about carrying a gun for self defense....

IT's not? Really? Do tell! If Scalia didn't mean what he said in the passage below I quoted earlier that has you all incensed then, what was it's RATIONAL MEANING?

"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. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). "

So go for it hot shot and detail how Scalia did not mean that quote above, but rather was proposing an UNLIMITED and UNRESTRAINED possession right of firearms with those words and everyone should not believe their lying eyes when they read that passage!

You were the one quoting the part of the decision dealing with the Operative Clause to support your possession. I just followed you and read the concluding paragraph of that section and got to the to the point of that entire section, part of which was Amendment II, "... conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms..." BUT "...the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment's right of free speech was not...." Too ******* bad your false dreams have been shattered, dipstick, but such is life...live with it!

So I'll take the totality of your rant as your admission that you don't know what the **** you're talking about regarding Amendment II, and I was 100% correct about LAWFUL LIMITATIONS to the extent of possession and use of firearms. The proposition of unfettered packin' and shootin' are all in your fucked up paranoid mind, shit for brains.

What are you retarded ? We had the 1968 gun law for almost 50 years , it's already been established that the 2nd like the 1st is not unlimited...




Heller was about clarifying the right of self defense, owning a gun in your home nit wit...it clarifys the left silly argument that miltia does not mean military..

This case is about the right for self defense owning a gun outside the home..
It's clarifying it.




.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Scalia meant that this case does not address the issues of concealed carry outside the house, or the issue of bans on carrying in schools, post offices etc. The plaintiffs did not bring them up as an issue, so we cannot address them. The next case will address those issues instead. Or possibly the one after that. They can certainly be addressed in a future case.

IOW, those are still legitimate issues in the face of the 2nd's clear ban on government infringing the people's right to KBA. We're just not addressing them THIS time. And the opinion in THIS case should not be taken to cast doubt on them

 

[danielpalos]

There is no "right" to carry concealed weapons enshrined within Amendment II. It is extremely doubtful SCOTUS would even grant certiorari to hear it given the nature of the case and the most recent precedents in Heller just 10 years ago.

Well regulated militia don't need to carry concealed weapons, why do gun lovers?

Why should you care? You have your safe space... snowflake

It is about, Due Process. Any privateer can acquire and posses Arms. Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Are you really that ******* stupid or are you just playing at it. I don't want to waste my time with either type of fool!

Heller, building upon the precedents in US v. Miller set the legal principle that, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." You don't like that LEGALLY BINDING PRINCIPLE, tough ******* shit and go pound sand, asshole! That's the guiding principle of the law of the land. If the law in San Diego limits concealed carry to specifics needs, it's the LAW THERE and likely meets the legal test, which is very unlikely to be heard by SCOTUS!
If you weren't such a miserably offensive, ignorant piece of crap, you may not have need of a weapon to defend yourself, ya ******* jerk! Now go about thy way and haveth carnal relations with thyself!

The Problem....moron....is that California prohibits open carry as well.....and with a concealed carry prohibition they make it impossible for people to exercise their right to carry a weapon for self defense........one or the other, they can't block both....


....I know you assholes see that one line from Heller and you think that allows you to ban every single gun in every place except for the broom closet in your home...and you think that covers the 2nd Amendment....but you have to read the entire heller decision...where they document carrying guns in your pocket.......moron...

From the actual Heller decision, twit...

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.

-----

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

-----

These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia

----

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.

-----

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.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”).
------------

Wow! I see you present a portion of Scalia's history summary in his discussion of the Operative Clause. It's too bloody bad that you didn't read all the way down to the concluding paragraph and absorb Scalia's conclusion on the efficacy and application of Amendment II which blows your entire rant into a pile of steaming shit! Here it is for all you gunner homies.

"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. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause."

It appears that Scalia mentioned that there were limitations to Amendment II multiple times, dipstick, but you just wouldn't buy it and now have embarrassed yourself once again by presenting your ignorance before all.

Have a nice day, Bubba!

Yeah...shit head......as a left wing asshole you read "any sort of confrontation" to mean they can ban carrying guns for any reason they feel like....and that isn't what he is saying considering all of the quotes I listed where he specifically talks about carrying a gun for self defense....

Why are you left wingers so stupid?

You asswipes think that those statements essentially means we can't carry any gun, anywhere, anytime......you are the moron......

--you can't carry a gun to commit murder....moron...

--you can't carry a gun in case you get caught by the homeowner of the home you plan to rob....moron...

you are so dumb...do you practice it, or does it just come naturally?

and that isn't what he is saying considering all of the quotes I listed where he specifically talks about carrying a gun for self defense....

IT's not? Really? Do tell! If Scalia didn't mean what he said in the passage below I quoted earlier that has you all incensed then, what was it's RATIONAL MEANING?

"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. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). "

So go for it hot shot and detail how Scalia did not mean that quote above, but rather was proposing an UNLIMITED and UNRESTRAINED possession right of firearms with those words and everyone should not believe their lying eyes when they read that passage!

You were the one quoting the part of the decision dealing with the Operative Clause to support your possession. I just followed you and read the concluding paragraph of that section and got to the to the point of that entire section, part of which was Amendment II, "... conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms..." BUT "...the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment's right of free speech was not...." Too ******* bad your false dreams have been shattered, dipstick, but such is life...live with it!

So I'll take the totality of your rant as your admission that you don't know what the **** you're talking about regarding Amendment II, and I was 100% correct about LAWFUL LIMITATIONS to the extent of possession and use of firearms. The proposition of unfettered packin' and shootin' are all in your fucked up paranoid mind, shit for brains.

What are you retarded ? We had the 1968 gun law for almost 50 years , it's already been established that the 2nd like the 1st is not unlimited...




Heller was about clarifying the right of self defense, owning a gun in your home nit wit...it clarifys the left silly argument that miltia does not mean military..

This case is about the right for self defense owning a gun outside the home..
It's clarifying it.

You're a know nothing idiot and fool trying to get anyone to believe that horseshit! Try reading and understanding the full scope of DC v. Heller before you overload you ass, dummy! You're stuck on stupid.

And have someone with enough smarts to explain to you what the definition of precedence and the legal principle regarding same. You're dummer than a stump on those two points!

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Scalia meant that this case does not address the issues of concealed carry outside the house, or the issue of bans on carrying in schools, post offices etc. The plaintiffs did not bring them up as an issue, so we cannot address them. The next case will address those issues instead. Or possibly the one after that. They can certainly be addressed in a future case.

IOW, those are still legitimate issues in the face of the 2nd's clear ban on government infringing the people's right to KBA. We're just not addressing them THIS time. And the opinion in THIS case should not be taken to cast doubt on them

That quote you credit to me is not mine, shit for brains. Take that quote to the other idiot in your cadre, 2AGUY, and argue your stupidity with him. Can't you get anything right? Your post is idiotic without a point of reference you ******* fool! Now run along!

 

[OKTexas]

There is no "right" to carry concealed weapons enshrined within Amendment II. It is extremely doubtful SCOTUS would even grant certiorari to hear it given the nature of the case and the most recent precedents in Heller just 10 years ago.

The Heller court avoided the subject, it will have to be addressed sooner or later. You think it won't be if the National Reciprocity Act is passed?

Bullshit, Heller avoided WHAT, and be ******* specific without quibbling, which is your usual fallback.

Regarding the National Reciprocity Act, the first clause of the opening line in the body of the text is, “(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section,...." That will NEVER stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.

Now go **** yourself you dishonest piece of lying shit!

The right of self defense outside the home. And yes it will stand to constitutional scrutiny, State are required to recognize the official acts of other States.

.

 

[Wolfstrike]

<<<<<<<<<<<,
It guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” But which people, what arms, and under what circumstances?>>>>>



LOL

 

[danielpalos]

<<<<<<<<<<<,
It guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” But which people, what arms, and under what circumstances?>>>>>



LOL

Only, well regulated militia of the People are Necessary to the security of a free State, regardless of all of the other ones.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

There is no "right" to carry concealed weapons enshrined within Amendment II. It is extremely doubtful SCOTUS would even grant certiorari to hear it given the nature of the case and the most recent precedents in Heller just 10 years ago.

The Heller court avoided the subject, it will have to be addressed sooner or later. You think it won't be if the National Reciprocity Act is passed?

Bullshit, Heller avoided WHAT, and be ******* specific without quibbling, which is your usual fallback.

Regarding the National Reciprocity Act, the first clause of the opening line in the body of the text is, “(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section,...." That will NEVER stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.

Now go **** yourself you dishonest piece of lying shit!

The right of self defense outside the home. And yes it will stand to constitutional scrutiny, State are required to recognize the official acts of other States.

.

Your typical non-responsive reply, Tex. The scope of the Heller decision is much broader than, "self defense outside the home", dipstick, but play your little game you will, asshole.

Under Article 4, Sec 1, States are required to afford full faith and credit to,"public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state". That does NOT include the category of criminal law statutes, of which public acts are NOT a part of! Quibbling and dishonest shit to the core, and just plain ignorant **** describes you fully. You're all smoke and no fire, Tex, you devious wanker!

 

[2aguy]

There is no "right" to carry concealed weapons enshrined within Amendment II. It is extremely doubtful SCOTUS would even grant certiorari to hear it given the nature of the case and the most recent precedents in Heller just 10 years ago.

The Heller court avoided the subject, it will have to be addressed sooner or later. You think it won't be if the National Reciprocity Act is passed?

Bullshit, Heller avoided WHAT, and be ******* specific without quibbling, which is your usual fallback.

Regarding the National Reciprocity Act, the first clause of the opening line in the body of the text is, “(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section,...." That will NEVER stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.

Now go **** yourself you dishonest piece of lying shit!

The right of self defense outside the home. And yes it will stand to constitutional scrutiny, State are required to recognize the official acts of other States.

.

Your typical non-responsive reply, Tex. The scope of the Heller decision is much broader than, "self defense outside the home", dipstick, but play your little game you will, asshole.

Under Article 4, Sec 1, States are required to afford full faith and credit to,"public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state". That does NOT include the category of criminal law statutes, of which public acts are NOT a part of! Quibbling and dishonest shit to the core, and just plain ignorant **** describes you fully. You're all smoke and no fire, Tex, you devious wanker!

The 2nd Amendment covers an actual right asswipe......and just like the made up marriage act and the abortion rights, the right will actually have to be honored in every state once reciprocity is passed....

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

There is no "right" to carry concealed weapons enshrined within Amendment II. It is extremely doubtful SCOTUS would even grant certiorari to hear it given the nature of the case and the most recent precedents in Heller just 10 years ago.

The Heller court avoided the subject, it will have to be addressed sooner or later. You think it won't be if the National Reciprocity Act is passed?

Bullshit, Heller avoided WHAT, and be ******* specific without quibbling, which is your usual fallback.

Regarding the National Reciprocity Act, the first clause of the opening line in the body of the text is, “(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section,...." That will NEVER stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.

Now go **** yourself you dishonest piece of lying shit!

The right of self defense outside the home. And yes it will stand to constitutional scrutiny, State are required to recognize the official acts of other States.

.

Your typical non-responsive reply, Tex. The scope of the Heller decision is much broader than, "self defense outside the home", dipstick, but play your little game you will, asshole.

Under Article 4, Sec 1, States are required to afford full faith and credit to,"public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state". That does NOT include the category of criminal law statutes, of which public acts are NOT a part of! Quibbling and dishonest shit to the core, and just plain ignorant **** describes you fully. You're all smoke and no fire, Tex, you devious wanker!

The 2nd Amendment covers an actual right asswipe......and just like the made up marriage act and the abortion rights, the right will actually have to be honored in every state once reciprocity is passed....

You're a ******* hidebound idiot in spades, Bubba! Think about this, fool! Are the criminal statutes in Texas given full faith and credit in California, and how about New Yorks criminal statutes having the same application in Texas? That's tantamount to nullifying part of Article 4, § 1 and being violative of Amendment X, shit for brains. Do you understand how utterly preposterous that is you damn fool? And you 2A nutters claim uphold Constitutional principles! Damned, misguided liars!

Go back to sleep, Bubba!

 

[danielpalos]

fallacy induced, right wing fantasy, is all they really have.

 

[OKTexas]

There is no "right" to carry concealed weapons enshrined within Amendment II. It is extremely doubtful SCOTUS would even grant certiorari to hear it given the nature of the case and the most recent precedents in Heller just 10 years ago.

The Heller court avoided the subject, it will have to be addressed sooner or later. You think it won't be if the National Reciprocity Act is passed?

Bullshit, Heller avoided WHAT, and be ******* specific without quibbling, which is your usual fallback.

Regarding the National Reciprocity Act, the first clause of the opening line in the body of the text is, “(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section,...." That will NEVER stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.

Now go **** yourself you dishonest piece of lying shit!

The right of self defense outside the home. And yes it will stand to constitutional scrutiny, State are required to recognize the official acts of other States.

.

Your typical non-responsive reply, Tex. The scope of the Heller decision is much broader than, "self defense outside the home", dipstick, but play your little game you will, asshole.

Under Article 4, Sec 1, States are required to afford full faith and credit to,"public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state". That does NOT include the category of criminal law statutes, of which public acts are NOT a part of! Quibbling and dishonest shit to the core, and just plain ignorant **** describes you fully. You're all smoke and no fire, Tex, you devious wanker!

Really, so if CA issues an arrest warrant for murder and the person is found in another State, they can't be arrested and held? The warrant is a public act pursuant to criminal law. But we're not talking about criminal law are we, a CHL is no different than a drivers license or a car registration, all States honor them. Imagine the chaos if TX told every State that didn't honor their CHLs they wouldn't honor their drivers licenses.

.

 

[2aguy]

The Heller court avoided the subject, it will have to be addressed sooner or later. You think it won't be if the National Reciprocity Act is passed?

Bullshit, Heller avoided WHAT, and be ******* specific without quibbling, which is your usual fallback.

Regarding the National Reciprocity Act, the first clause of the opening line in the body of the text is, “(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section,...." That will NEVER stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.

Now go **** yourself you dishonest piece of lying shit!

The right of self defense outside the home. And yes it will stand to constitutional scrutiny, State are required to recognize the official acts of other States.

.

Your typical non-responsive reply, Tex. The scope of the Heller decision is much broader than, "self defense outside the home", dipstick, but play your little game you will, asshole.

Under Article 4, Sec 1, States are required to afford full faith and credit to,"public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state". That does NOT include the category of criminal law statutes, of which public acts are NOT a part of! Quibbling and dishonest shit to the core, and just plain ignorant **** describes you fully. You're all smoke and no fire, Tex, you devious wanker!

The 2nd Amendment covers an actual right asswipe......and just like the made up marriage act and the abortion rights, the right will actually have to be honored in every state once reciprocity is passed....

You're a ******* hidebound idiot in spades, Bubba! Think about this, fool! Are the criminal statutes in Texas given full faith and credit in California, and how about New Yorks criminal statutes having the same application in Texas? That's tantamount to nullifying part of Article 4, § 1 and being violative of Amendment X, shit for brains. Do you understand how utterly preposterous that is you damn fool? And you 2A nutters claim uphold Constitutional principles! Damned, misguided liars!

Go back to sleep, Bubba!

No shit head......the 2nd Amendment is a Right......the same as voting and freedom of speech....you democrat assholes used the law to prevent blacks from voting...with poll taxes and literacy tests...and you are trying to do the same to another Right, the Right to bear arms for self defense....

 

[Little-Acorn]

the right will actually have to be honored in every state once reciprocity is passed....

Actually, the ban on making any laws to infringe the right to KBA, applies to all govts in the US: Fed, state, and local. And it has since the day it was ratified in the Bill of Rights. No act of "reciprocity" is needed - the 2nd amendment has had it since it was enacted.

Some amendments were intended to apply only to the Federal government, such as the 1st ("Congress shall make no law..."). The 14th amendment later changed this. But when the BOR was first ratified, an amendment had to specifically name which government(s) the amendment's rule was restricted to. Or else it applied to all of them.

The Fed govt isn't the only one that has violated the 2nd amendment in the last few centuries. Most state and local governments have been violating it for that long, too.

 

[2aguy]

Another fail, despite the bold underlining. Where does it outlaw concealed carry?

Getting tired of duche bags that believe they should be the arbiter of who is allowed to defend themselves. Bunch of brainwashed punks.

Are you really that ******* stupid or are you just playing at it. I don't want to waste my time with either type of fool!

Heller, building upon the precedents in US v. Miller set the legal principle that, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." You don't like that LEGALLY BINDING PRINCIPLE, tough ******* shit and go pound sand, asshole! That's the guiding principle of the law of the land. If the law in San Diego limits concealed carry to specifics needs, it's the LAW THERE and likely meets the legal test, which is very unlikely to be heard by SCOTUS!

Getting tired of duche bags that believe they should be the arbiter of who is allowed to defend themselves.

If you weren't such a miserably offensive, ignorant piece of crap, you may not have need of a weapon to defend yourself, ya ******* jerk! Now go about thy way and haveth carnal relations with thyself!

The Problem....moron....is that California prohibits open carry as well.....and with a concealed carry prohibition they make it impossible for people to exercise their right to carry a weapon for self defense........one or the other, they can't block both....


....I know you assholes see that one line from Heller and you think that allows you to ban every single gun in every place except for the broom closet in your home...and you think that covers the 2nd Amendment....but you have to read the entire heller decision...where they document carrying guns in your pocket.......moron...

From the actual Heller decision, twit...

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.

-----

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

-----

These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia

----

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.

-----

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.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”).
------------

Wow! I see you present a portion of Scalia's history summary in his discussion of the Operative Clause. It's too bloody bad that you didn't read all the way down to the concluding paragraph and absorb Scalia's conclusion on the efficacy and application of Amendment II which blows your entire rant into a pile of steaming shit! Here it is for all you gunner homies.

"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. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause."

It appears that Scalia mentioned that there were limitations to Amendment II multiple times, dipstick, but you just wouldn't buy it and now have embarrassed yourself once again by presenting your ignorance before all.

Have a nice day, Bubba!

Yeah...shit head......as a left wing asshole you read "any sort of confrontation" to mean they can ban carrying guns for any reason they feel like....and that isn't what he is saying considering all of the quotes I listed where he specifically talks about carrying a gun for self defense....

Why are you left wingers so stupid?

You asswipes think that those statements essentially means we can't carry any gun, anywhere, anytime......you are the moron......

--you can't carry a gun to commit murder....moron...

--you can't carry a gun in case you get caught by the homeowner of the home you plan to rob....moron...

you are so dumb...do you practice it, or does it just come naturally?

and that isn't what he is saying considering all of the quotes I listed where he specifically talks about carrying a gun for self defense....

IT's not? Really? Do tell! If Scalia didn't mean what he said in the passage below I quoted earlier that has you all incensed then, what was it's RATIONAL MEANING?

"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. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). "

So go for it hot shot and detail how Scalia did not mean that quote above, but rather was proposing an UNLIMITED and UNRESTRAINED possession right of firearms with those words and everyone should not believe their lying eyes when they read that passage!

You were the one quoting the part of the decision dealing with the Operative Clause to support your possession. I just followed you and read the concluding paragraph of that section and got to the to the point of that entire section, part of which was Amendment II, "... conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms..." BUT "...the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment's right of free speech was not...." Too ******* bad your false dreams have been shattered, dipstick, but such is life...live with it!

So I'll take the totality of your rant as your admission that you don't know what the **** you're talking about regarding Amendment II, and I was 100% correct about LAWFUL LIMITATIONS to the extent of possession and use of firearms. The proposition of unfettered packin' and shootin' are all in your fucked up paranoid mind, shit for brains.

See....shit heads like you want to gut the 2nd Amendment......do you think that when Scalia wrote that the Freedom of Speech was not unlimited that he meant that you don't get to say what you want, where you want in any way you want to the point you can't speak any view in public...ever....without the approval of the local, state and federal government and that Freedom of Speech only applies to your own home....with permission from the government....?

You left wing hacks.......this is why there is no dealing with you, there is no "common sense" gun control..because you are book burners.....you hate guns...you hate the people who own them and you really hate those people who decide to actually carry guns for self defense....so, just like those irrational assholes who burn books they don't like....you morons wiill use any excuse to ban as many guns as you can...and to punish in any way you can sinners who actually buy, own and carry guns......

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Really, so if CA issues an arrest warrant for murder and the person is found in another State, they can't be arrested and held?

Going right to type with that stupidity, Tex!

The warrant is a public act pursuant to criminal law.

Look up the legal definition of public act you ******* imbecile! Perhaps you already have some idea what the definition is of criminal law, but I may be giving you too much credit!

But we're not talking about criminal law are we, a CHL is no different than a drivers license or a car registration, all States honor them.

Dummy, the Federal forcing conceal carry reciprocity on to State and local jurisdictions with their OWN BLOODY CRIMINAL STATUTES regarding conceal carry are bound to be in direct conflict, and even your dumb ass can name specific States and locals where that would be true, including San Diego, CA ass wipe! Now run along, Tex!