California in violation of the second amendment

[Inthemiddle]

Everyone responding to my thoughts here seems to be making the same mistake. You are missing the way in which the Court has restricted (or more exactly, allowed state governments to restrict -- the Court didn't restrict it on its own authority) the right to keep and bear arms. It's arguable as you have done here that the right to keep and bear arms is not predicated on service in the militia, but it can't be argued that the 2A, as written and reasonably interpreted, does not guarantee the right to keep and bear arms appropriate to militia service -- whatever else it may or may not protect.

I think you are confusing the concept of militia service, and service in a professional standing military. The weaponry, training, and expertise of a professionally maintained army will always exceed those of a "minute-man" militia, if you will. But as demonstrated in the Revolutionary War, the power of the militia is in the fact that when the majority of able bodied citizens rise up, reasonably armed, they will usually be able to repel an invading force of a smaller professional invasion army. Heller did not restrict which arms the constitution protects. That question had long been established by preceding case law, and the Heller case merely noted that history.

 

[Dragon]

I think you are confusing the concept of militia service, and service in a professional standing military. The weaponry, training, and expertise of a professionally maintained army will always exceed those of a "minute-man" militia, if you will.

Actually, in the Revolutionary War they did not, or not by far. The standard weapon in use in the British army was the "Brown Bess" muzzle-loading smoothbore musket with fixed bayonet. The weapons carried by the irregulars fighting them were essentially the same, except without the fixed bayonet. The advantage of the Royal Army was not in weaponry but in discipline and order.

But as demonstrated in the Revolutionary War, the power of the militia is in the fact that when the majority of able bodied citizens rise up, reasonably armed, they will usually be able to repel an invading force of a smaller professional invasion army.

I think that's a highly dubious claim, and in fact if you look at modern conflicts between well-equipped armies and irregulars it's not borne out. The insurgents in Iraq, for example, can't face the U.S. military in open conflict and hope to win. What they can do is to attack in surprise hit-and-run raids, inflict casualties, and disappear. This is partly because of superior training on the part of the U.S. forces but mostly because of superior firepower and equipment.

Heller did not restrict which arms the constitution protects. That question had long been established by preceding case law, and the Heller case merely noted that history.

Previous case law had left undecided the question of whether the 2A protected an individual right at all. But yes, the evolution away from the original right to keep and bear arms has been going on for a while. Nevertheless, that's exactly what it is.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Heller was so cloudy it left the door open for these kinds of restriction.

Heller was, in my opinion, revision of the Second Amendment to separate the two parts of its language and make a different individual right out of the operative portion than was originally intended. However, the Court is authorized to decide the meaning of the law, not me, so Scalia's opinion counts and mine doesn't.

Just the same, I'll go ahead and express it.

The Second Amendment gives the people an individual right to keep and bear arms for a stated purpose, and that purpose is military: to serve in a well-regulated militia. It does not grant a collective right; there's no doubt that the right is individual; but it does not grant the right to keep and bear arms for any other purpose than serving in the militia -- not for self-defense, not for hunting, not for target-shooting or collecting or any of the other purposes people use firearms for.

This has a number of implications. One of them is on the restrictions on type of weapon that are consistent with the 2A, and this is where the Court's version (a right to keep and bear arms for various non-military purposes, with the original military purpose forgotten) most diverges from the original. If the arms that the people have a right to keep and bear are for the purpose of serving in a well-regulated militia for the defense of a free state, then they must be military weapons. And modern military arms are precisely those that the Court decision implies may be banned, as they are "dangerous and unusual weapons." Interpreted in accord with its stated purpose, the 2A protects a right to keep fully-automatic assault rifles, grenades, machine guns, body armor, flame-throwers, and other weapons useful in military combat, but not handguns for home defense or hunting rifles or target rifles or shotguns or anything of a non-military sort. Yet the Heller decision would exactly reverse this.

Another implication is on the types of restrictions on bearing arms that a government may impose. No restrictions on bearing arms that would prevent their being used for military training or for mustering into the militia on short notice can be allowed; thus, a person must be allowed to keep military arms and ammunition in his home, so that he may assemble with the rest of the militia fully armed and ready for combat. However, almost any other restriction would be permitted. The state or city might not allow a person to carry weapons out of the home except when serving in the militia. It might require that the weapons be unloaded except when serving. It might require trigger locks rendering the weapon useless, provided those locks are removable in a reasonable amount of time consistent with service in the militia.

Because of the Heller decision, we now have a completely different Second Amendment than the one originally incorporated into the Bill of Rights, one in which the first words might as well not exist.

The Second Amendment gives the people an individual right to keep and bear arms for a stated purpose, and that purpose is military: to serve in a well-regulated militia.

So far so good

And modern military arms are precisely those that the Court decision implies may be banned, as they are "dangerous and unusual weapons." Interpreted in accord with its stated purpose, the 2A protects a right to keep fully-automatic assault rifles, grenades, machine guns, body armor, flame-throwers, and other weapons useful in military combat, but not handguns for home defense or hunting rifles or target rifles or shotguns or anything of a non-military sort. Yet the Heller decision would exactly reverse this.

Here's where you steered off course. The "dangerous and unusual weapons." would be weapons such as a sawed off double barrel shotgun which has no military value, that would benefit a well regulated an efficient militia. hand guns are used by the military and also pumpshotguns. Any military grade weapon can also be used for hunting and target shoting those three subjects go hand in hand. Lewis vs. U.S. address this as does miller vs. U.S.

Another implication is on the types of restrictions on bearing arms that a government may impose. No restrictions on bearing arms that would prevent their being used for military training or for mustering into the militia on short notice can be allowed; thus, a person must be allowed to keep military arms and ammunition in his home, so that he may assemble with the rest of the militia fully armed and ready for combat. However, almost any other restriction would be permitted. The state or city might not allow a person to carry weapons out of the home except when serving in the militia. It might require that the weapons be unloaded except when serving. It might require trigger locks rendering the weapon useless, provided those locks are removable in a reasonable amount of time consistent with service in the militia.

People leave their homes from time to time for long periods of time two or three weeks using what you posted to show why people would have to carry while they are out side there home, an example would be they could not get to there weapons while they are on vacation unless they took their firearms with them. They would also have to carry them to the range to practice and it's crazy to carry an unloaded firearm in public. Because your firearm can be stolen from you if you cannot defend yourself.

Because of the Heller decision, we now have a completely different Second Amendment than the one originally incorporated into the Bill of Rights, one in which the first words might as well not exist

Yes we do have a differant second amendment because of Heller and McDonald it open the door for more gun restrictions like this one.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't see the Heller case supporting that at all. The court took notice of the original text, and subsequent revisions, of the second amendment, and also incorporated the understanding of natural rights have have always been recognized as inherent in the people. There is no evidence that, at the time of adoption of the second amendment, there was ever any belief that a person's right to bear arms was predicated on the possibility of serving as part of the militia.

Everyone responding to my thoughts here seems to be making the same mistake. You are missing the way in which the Court has restricted (or more exactly, allowed state governments to restrict -- the Court didn't restrict it on its own authority) the right to keep and bear arms. It's arguable as you have done here that the right to keep and bear arms is not predicated on service in the militia, but it can't be argued that the 2A, as written and reasonably interpreted, does not guarantee the right to keep and bear arms appropriate to militia service -- whatever else it may or may not protect.

That is: maybe the Second Amendment guarantees you the right to have guns for other purposes, too. But there's no doubt AT ALL that it guarantees you the right to have guns appropriate to serve in the militia.

And yet, as interpreted by the Heller decision, now it doesn't.

I am inclined to agree that the second amendment is somewhat dated for relevant modern applications. But it won't be changed in our lifetimes. However, I don't think your concerns about public safety are relevant.

Actually, that's what I think was behind the Court's decision in Heller to permit governments to ban "dangerous and unusual weapons."

The second amendment doesn't protect an individual right to keep "unusual" weapons. You have a basic right to keep "normal" weapons. Hence the ban on full auto guns or rifles, certain types of ammunition, and other types of weapons. I don't know of any "unusually" dangerous weapon that the second amendment is currently believed to protect.

Well, since the Heller decision, that's true. But if the (or at least one) purpose of the Amendment was to guarantee an armed militia, then yes, it DID protect the right to have "dangerous and unusual" weapons -- those above all others.

As I said, in strict common sense, I agree that the Heller decision is good policy; I don't want to see lots of military guns in private ownership. I think that would be a nightmare. But that is what the Second Amendment was meant to guarantee, if it guaranteed anything.

As I said, in strict common sense, I agree that the Heller decision is good policy; I don't want to see lots of military guns in private ownership. I think that would be a nightmare. But that is what the Second Amendment was meant to guarantee, if it guaranteed anything

Wouldn't you agree that an m 16 or m60 is a more suitable military firearm's compared to the compared to the savage 111 300 win mag?

 

[Dragon]

Here's where you steered off course. The "dangerous and unusual weapons." would be weapons such as a sawed off double barrel shotgun which has no military value, that would benefit a well regulated an efficient militia.

It does include those, but it also includes many standard military weapons. There's no doubt that a fully-automatic weapon (I don't mean what the federal assault weapon ban calls "automatic," which is really semi-auto, but rather the ability of a military assault rifle to convert to machine-gun mode) is unusually dangerous. Guns that you might buy for self-defense or other normal purposes have much less firepower. You can hose down masses of people in seconds with one of those, although the accuracy suffers compared to single-shot mode. If you're considering banning firearms for public-safety reasons, that's got to be high on the list.

hand guns are used by the military and also pumpshotguns.

Handguns are issued to officers, sort of like sabers used to be, but seldom see use in combat. Pump shotguns? A bit more utility and so arguably the original 2A would protect it.

Any military grade weapon can also be used for hunting and target shooting

Pretty much but that's beside the point. The reverse isn't true. Whether the Second Amendment protects a right to own non-military grade weapons is open to interpretation, but any reasonable interpretation would protect a right to own military-grade weapons.

Yes we do have a differant second amendment because of Heller and McDonald it open the door for more gun restrictions like this one.

Yes. It's not an unrestricted or absolute right. But AFAIK no Court decision has specifically said a ban on open carry is constitutional, so this is still open to challenge. It could end up being unconstitutional; but what I'm saying is that's not automatic.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Here's where you steered off course. The "dangerous and unusual weapons." would be weapons such as a sawed off double barrel shotgun which has no military value, that would benefit a well regulated an efficient militia.

It does include those, but it also includes many standard military weapons. There's no doubt that a fully-automatic weapon (I don't mean what the federal assault weapon ban calls "automatic," which is really semi-auto, but rather the ability of a military assault rifle to convert to machine-gun mode) is unusually dangerous. Guns that you might buy for self-defense or other normal purposes have much less firepower. You can hose down masses of people in seconds with one of those, although the accuracy suffers compared to single-shot mode. If you're considering banning firearms for public-safety reasons, that's got to be high on the list.

hand guns are used by the military and also pumpshotguns.

Handguns are issued to officers, sort of like sabers used to be, but seldom see use in combat. Pump shotguns? A bit more utility and so arguably the original 2A would protect it.

Any military grade weapon can also be used for hunting and target shooting

Pretty much but that's beside the point. The reverse isn't true. Whether the Second Amendment protects a right to own non-military grade weapons is open to interpretation, but any reasonable interpretation would protect a right to own military-grade weapons.

Yes we do have a differant second amendment because of Heller and McDonald it open the door for more gun restrictions like this one.

Yes. It's not an unrestricted or absolute right. But AFAIK no Court decision has specifically said a ban on open carry is constitutional, so this is still open to challenge. It could end up being unconstitutional; but what I'm saying is that's not automatic.

Handguns are issued to officers, sort of like sabers used to be, but seldom see use in combat. Pump shotguns? A bit more utility and so arguably the original 2A would protect it

No hand guns are not only issued to officers but to enlisted.

And the pump shotgun is also a military issued weapon.

Yes. It's not an unrestricted or absolute right. But AFAIK no Court decision has specifically said a ban on open carry is constitutional, so this is still open to challenge. It could end up being unconstitutional; but what I'm saying is that's not automatic

The only weapons on a ban are the very weapons that the courts have said are protected by the second amsnedment

It does include those, but it also includes many standard military weapons. There's no doubt that a fully-automatic weapon (I don't mean what the federal assault weapon ban calls "automatic," which is really semi-auto, but rather the ability of a military assault rifle to convert to machine-gun mode) is unusually dangerous. Guns that you might buy for self-defense or other normal purposes have much less firepower. You can hose down masses of people in seconds with one of those, although the accuracy suffers compared to single-shot mode. If you're considering banning firearms for public-safety reasons, that's got to be high on the list.

Courts have said that military grade weapons are the only weapons protected by the second amendment. So how can a gun ban like clintons gun ban be constitutional?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This gun control and gun bans are total bullshit, we use court ruling as a defense for our argument but the courts at one time ruled that slavery was allowed under the Constitution. Would we stand for slavery if the courts somehow come back that slavery could be reinstated under certian circumstances? Oh and how do you think gun control was first started? It was first used to keep guns out of the hands of blacks.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The 2nd amend. still reads and means the same as always. The SC merely corrected misconceptions.

 

[earlycuyler]

Bans open carry.
I'm a strict Constitutionalist in no way should this ban be allowed to stand as is. The 10th aendment says

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since the states have given the feds the authority to keep in check any violation of the second amendment and the second Amendment says

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What part of keep and bear arms do these pricks not understand?


SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- California became the fifth state to prohibit openly carrying handguns in public after Gov. Jerry Brown announced Monday that he had signed the ban into law amid heavy opposition from gun enthusiasts.

AB144 by state Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-Pasadena, makes it a misdemeanor to carry an exposed and unloaded gun in public or in vehicles, with violators facing up to a year in prison or a potential fine of $1,000 when the law takes effect on Jan 1.
New law bans open carry of handguns in Calif. - Forbes.com

I have lived in a state that banned open carry. I dont know how I feel about it. I do believe that "concealed" carry means "CONCEALED CARRY", and that its just not appropriate to be standing around with a Glock on display on your hip. Now the thing with the vehicles is odd. If you are moving from duck blind A to duck blind B what do you do with the shot gun ? I always threw my gun on the back seat unloaded and action open.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bans open carry.
I'm a strict Constitutionalist in no way should this ban be allowed to stand as is. The 10th aendment says

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since the states have given the feds the authority to keep in check any violation of the second amendment and the second Amendment says

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What part of keep and bear arms do these pricks not understand?


SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- California became the fifth state to prohibit openly carrying handguns in public after Gov. Jerry Brown announced Monday that he had signed the ban into law amid heavy opposition from gun enthusiasts.

AB144 by state Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-Pasadena, makes it a misdemeanor to carry an exposed and unloaded gun in public or in vehicles, with violators facing up to a year in prison or a potential fine of $1,000 when the law takes effect on Jan 1.
New law bans open carry of handguns in Calif. - Forbes.com

I have lived in a state that banned open carry. I dont know how I feel about it. I do believe that "concealed" carry means "CONCEALED CARRY", and that its just not appropriate to be standing around with a Glock on display on your hip. Now the thing with the vehicles is odd. If you are moving from duck blind A to duck blind B what do you do with the shot gun ? I always threw my gun on the back seat unloaded and action open.

and that its just not appropriate to be standing around with a Glock on display on your hip

Why?