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.
You have utterly no grasp at all how our government and legal system work.
Not a hint of a clue.
The 9th blatantly violated Heller with this ruling.
You have utterly no grasp at all how our government and legal system work.
Not a hint of a clue.
The 9th blatantly violated Heller with this ruling.
You should have actually read Heller.
Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home.
District of Columbia v. Heller | Summary, Ruling, & Facts ...
that would apply if not that fed law over rides state law,,,We did not start over. States continued under English common law. The federal government was the only one to start anew.you ever heard the expression "AMERICAN EXPERIMENT"??
we threw out all the old ways of thinking and started something new,,
We have. Clearly you only read the crib notes.
Texas will be doing something about that shit.“There is no right to carry arms openly in public; nor is any such right within the scope of the Second Amendment,” U.S. Circuit Judge Jay Bybee, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote for the majority of an 11-judge panel in a 127-page opinion.
Looking back on 700 years of legal history dating back to 14th century England, seven judges in the majority found “overwhelming evidence” that the law has never given people “an unfettered right to carry weapons in public spaces.”
The seven-judge majority traced legal texts and laws back to 1348 when the English parliament enacted the statute of Northampton, which banned carrying weapons in fairs or markets or before the King’s justices. It also cited multiple laws from colonial and pre-Civil War America in which states and colonies restricted the possession of weapons in public places.
“The Second Amendment did not contradict the fundamental principle that the government assumes primary responsibility for defending persons who enter our public spaces,” Bybee wrote. “The states do not violate the Second Amendment by asserting their longstanding English and American rights to prohibit certain weapons from entering those public spaces as means of providing ‘domestic tranquility’ and forestalling ‘domestic violence.’”
Writing for the dissent, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, a Ronald Reagan appointee, said the majority failed to properly interpret the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columba v. Heller, which overturned Washington D.C.’s total ban on handguns and a requirement that rifles and shotguns be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger-lock device.
The Second Amendment’s text, history, and structure, and the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Heller, all point squarely to the same conclusion: Armed self-defense in public is at the very core of the Second Amendment right,” O’Scannlain wrote.
Plaintiff George Young sued Hawaii in 2012 for denying his applications for permits to carry a concealed or openly visible handgun. A Hawaii state law requires a license to carry a gun in public.
Under a Hawaii County regulation, the police chief may only grant such licenses to those who need a gun for their job or who show “reason to fear injury” to their “person or property.” No one other than a security guard has ever obtained an open-carry license in Hawaii, lawyers for the county acknowledged during a Ninth Circuit hearing in 2018.
On July 2018, a divided three-judge Ninth Circuit panel ruled that carrying a gun in public is a constitutional right and that Hawaii cannot deny permits to all non-security guard civilians who wish to exercise that right.
On Wednesday, the en banc panel majority reversed that decision, finding the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision is not inconsistent with state laws that restrict the right to carry arms in public.
Nothing to see here.....
So, why do we keep hearing bullshit about the 2nd Amendment being a collective right?SUMMARY OF D.C. V. HELLER
Oct 17, 2008 — In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court answered a long-standing constitutional question about whether the right to “keep and bear arms” is an individual right unconnected to service in the militia or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias.
I pointed out we didn't start over at the state level.and I never said we started over,, we started a new system not ever seen before,,
We did not start over. States continued under English common law. The federal government was the only one to start anew.
and you are wrong,, when the states ratified the constitution they agreed and changed with the rest of us,,I pointed out we didn't start over at the state level.and I never said we started over,, we started a new system not ever seen before,,
We did not start over. States continued under English common law. The federal government was the only one to start anew.
So, why do we keep hearing bullshit about the 2nd Amendment being a collective right?
and you are wrong,, when the states ratified the constitution they agreed and changed with the rest of us,,
fed law over rides state law,,
but afterwards there was,, and thats what the states agreed too,,and you are wrong,, when the states ratified the constitution they agreed and changed with the rest of us,,
fed law over rides state law,,
When we started, there was no federal law.
The original intent can ONLY have been a ban on federal authority, and a reservation of that authority to the states.So, why do we keep hearing bullshit about the 2nd Amendment being a collective right?
Because that was the original intent.
Heller addressed the right to possess a firearm for the purpose of self defense, which Heller expanded into an individual right.
They did not address the right to possess a firearm in public. They found unconstitutional a restriction on possession in house, home or business.
You should know, anything beyond that would have been "dicta"
the original intent was for the people to be as equally armed as the government or any threat from another country,,So, why do we keep hearing bullshit about the 2nd Amendment being a collective right?
Because that was the original intent.
And states agreed to grant exclusive authority to this new federal government, but reserved authority to themselves. The 2nd Amendment was a clear reservation of state authority.and you are wrong,, when the states ratified the constitution they agreed and changed with the rest of us,,
fed law over rides state law,,
When we started, there was no federal law.
We continued under English common law, until congress passed laws changing it.
An Act to regulate the Time and Manner of administering certain Oaths was the first law passed by the United States Congress after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. It was signed by President George Washington on June 1, 1789,
You have utterly no grasp at all how our government and legal system work.
Not a hint of a clue.
The 9th blatantly violated Heller with this ruling.
You should have actually read Heller.
Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home.
District of Columbia v. Heller | Summary, Ruling, & Facts ...
And states agreed to grant exclusive authority to this new federal government, but reserved authority to themselves. The 2nd Amendment was a clear reservation of state authority.and you are wrong,, when the states ratified the constitution they agreed and changed with the rest of us,,
fed law over rides state law,,
When we started, there was no federal law.
We continued under English common law, until congress passed laws changing it.
An Act to regulate the Time and Manner of administering certain Oaths was the first law passed by the United States Congress after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. It was signed by President George Washington on June 1, 1789,
English law prior to 1775 is irrelevant. The second amendment is very clear--the right to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed.“There is no right to carry arms openly in public; nor is any such right within the scope of the Second Amendment,”
So, why do we keep hearing bullshit about the 2nd Amendment being a collective right?
Because that was the original intent.
