Obama's Judges : Right to Bear Arms Not An INDIVIDUAL Right

[bigrebnc1775]

What's to interpret? It seems clear enough.

How do arms relate to these?

So the people are only the collective when it's guns and individuals when it's not?

I don't get that the collective sense of 'people' is different in the citations.

There's a lot of things you don't get. I suggest some remedial training.

 

[Oldguy]

Three Scumbag Fourth Circuit Court Of Appeals Judges unbelievably Attempt to REVERSE the Supreme Court Ruling that the Right to Defend our lives is an individual right:

Albert Diaz - appointed by Obama

Andre M. Davis appointed by Obama

Robert Bruce King appointed by Slick Willy


OPINION

KING, Circuit Judge:

The district court permanently enjoined enforcement of
section 5-306(a)(5)(ii) of the Public Safety Article of the
Maryland Code, to the extent that it conditions eligibility for
a permit to carry, wear, or transport a handgun in public on
having "good and substantial reason" to do so. Necessary to
the entry of the court’s injunction was its trailblazing pronouncement
that the Second Amendment right to keep and
bear arms for the purpose of self-defense extends outside the
home, as well as its determination that such right is impermissibly
burdened by Maryland’s good-and-substantialreason
requirement. See Woollard v. Sheridan, 863 F. Supp.
2d 462 (D. Md. 2012). Because we disagree with the court’s
conclusion that the good-and-substantial-reason requirement
cannot pass constitutional muster, we reverse the judgment
without needlessly demarcating the reach of the Second
Amendment.

.

You REALLY need to learn SOMETHING about the law and how it operates. You REALLY need to learn how to READ a court opinion before opening your mouth and revealing the paucity of your information and general intelligence.

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit most decidedly did NOT try to reverse any Supreme Court ruling! What they did do is reverse a lower, District Court ruling which expanded upon the SC ruling in "DC vs Heller" to include a virtually unrestricted right to carry arms outside the home, something the Supreme Court left open in both their Heller and "McDonald vs. Chicago" rulings.

I'll try to be very brief in explaining this to you so maybe you'll understand that whatever it is you're getting from right-wing, 2nd amendment interest group websites is total bullshit.

This case revolves around a Maryland statute which, among other things, allows individuals the right to carry a permitted weapon if they can prove a reason for doing so. The appellant in this case had such a permit at one time, but failed to offer evidence that he still needed to carry a loaded firearm when his permit came up for renewal. His renewal was denied. So..he sued, claiming that state's requirements were a violation of his Second Amendment rights.

The District Court agreed with him, but in their opinion went far beyond what the SC ruled in Heller and McDonald and beyond even what the 4th Circuit had ruled in previous cases. As the Circuit Court noted in their opinion:

"What we know from [Heller and McDonald] is that Second Amendment guarantees are at their zenith within the home. What we do not know is the scope of that right beyond the home and the standards for determining when and how the right can be regulated by a government."

That a right to carry outside the home CAN be regulated by a government is without question to anyone. Heller and McDonald made that abundantly clear.

I won't try to explain the procedure for scrutiny which the Court applied, one which just about ever court used because of previous decisions, but I will note that the Court said:

"We hew to a judicious course today, refraining from any assessment of whether Maryland’s good-and-substantial- reason requirement for obtaining a handgun permit implicates Second Amendment protections. That is, we merely assume that the Heller right exists outside the home and that such right of Appellee Woollard has been infringed. We are free to make that assumption because the good-and-substantial- reason requirement passes constitutional muster under what we have deemed to be the applicable standard — intermediate scrutiny."

In other words, the Court acted upon the presumption that the Maryland "good and substantial" requirements are constitutional on their face because the state has proven that it has the constitutional right to impose standards. Nobody will argue with that.

The Court therefore ruled that the state requirement to re-prove ones eligibility for open carry is constitutional and, therefore since the appellant failed to prove his eligibility at the time of renewal, their denial of his permit was not a violation of his Second Amendment rights.

"In summary, although we assume that Appellee Woollard’s Second Amendment right is burdened by the good-and- substantial-reason requirement, we further conclude that such burden is constitutionally permissible. That is, under the applicable intermediate scrutiny standard, the State has demonstrated that the good-and-substantial-reason requirement is reasonably adapted to Maryland’s significant interests in pro- tecting public safety and preventing crime."

They reversed the lower court ruling.

See? Your original premise, and the premise of those moronic, hyper-excited gun-nut sites is dead wrong.

 

[Oldguy]

That right! We all have Collective Rights not individual rights.

Bravo 4th Circuit!

That is NOT WHAT THIS COURT RULED! Nor is it what the Supreme Court ruled in both Heller and McDonald!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Three Scumbag Fourth Circuit Court Of Appeals Judges unbelievably Attempt to REVERSE the Supreme Court Ruling that the Right to Defend our lives is an individual right:

Albert Diaz - appointed by Obama

Andre M. Davis appointed by Obama

Robert Bruce King appointed by Slick Willy


OPINION

KING, Circuit Judge:

The district court permanently enjoined enforcement of
section 5-306(a)(5)(ii) of the Public Safety Article of the
Maryland Code, to the extent that it conditions eligibility for
a permit to carry, wear, or transport a handgun in public on
having "good and substantial reason" to do so. Necessary to
the entry of the court’s injunction was its trailblazing pronouncement
that the Second Amendment right to keep and
bear arms for the purpose of self-defense extends outside the
home, as well as its determination that such right is impermissibly
burdened by Maryland’s good-and-substantialreason
requirement. See Woollard v. Sheridan, 863 F. Supp.
2d 462 (D. Md. 2012). Because we disagree with the court’s
conclusion that the good-and-substantial-reason requirement
cannot pass constitutional muster, we reverse the judgment
without needlessly demarcating the reach of the Second
Amendment.

.

You REALLY need to learn SOMETHING about the law and how it operates. You REALLY need to learn how to READ a court opinion before opening your mouth and revealing the paucity of your information and general intelligence.

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit most decidedly did NOT try to reverse any Supreme Court ruling! What they did do is reverse a lower, District Court ruling which expanded upon the SC ruling in "DC vs Heller" to include a virtually unrestricted right to carry arms outside the home, something the Supreme Court left open in both their Heller and "McDonald vs. Chicago" rulings.

I'll try to be very brief in explaining this to you so maybe you'll understand that whatever it is you're getting from right-wing, 2nd amendment interest group websites is total bullshit.

This case revolves around a Maryland statute which, among other things, allows individuals the right to carry a permitted weapon if they can prove a reason for doing so. The appellant in this case had such a permit at one time, but failed to offer evidence that he still needed to carry a loaded firearm when his permit came up for renewal. His renewal was denied. So..he sued, claiming that state's requirements were a violation of his Second Amendment rights.

The District Court agreed with him, but in their opinion went far beyond what the SC ruled in Heller and McDonald and beyond even what the 4th Circuit had ruled in previous cases. As the Circuit Court noted in their opinion:

"What we know from [Heller and McDonald] is that Second Amendment guarantees are at their zenith within the home. What we do not know is the scope of that right beyond the home and the standards for determining when and how the right can be regulated by a government."

That a right to carry outside the home CAN be regulated by a government is without question to anyone. Heller and McDonald made that abundantly clear.

I won't try to explain the procedure for scrutiny which the Court applied, one which just about ever court used because of previous decisions, but I will note that the Court said:

"We hew to a judicious course today, refraining from any assessment of whether Maryland’s good-and-substantial- reason requirement for obtaining a handgun permit implicates Second Amendment protections. That is, we merely assume that the Heller right exists outside the home and that such right of Appellee Woollard has been infringed. We are free to make that assumption because the good-and-substantial- reason requirement passes constitutional muster under what we have deemed to be the applicable standard — intermediate scrutiny."

In other words, the Court acted upon the presumption that the Maryland "good and substantial" requirements are constitutional on their face because the state has proven that it has the constitutional right to impose standards. Nobody will argue with that.

The Court therefore ruled that the state requirement to re-prove ones eligibility for open carry is constitutional and, therefore since the appellant failed to prove his eligibility at the time of renewal, their denial of his permit was not a violation of his Second Amendment rights.

"In summary, although we assume that Appellee Woollard’s Second Amendment right is burdened by the good-and- substantial-reason requirement, we further conclude that such burden is constitutionally permissible. That is, under the applicable intermediate scrutiny standard, the State has demonstrated that the good-and-substantial-reason requirement is reasonably adapted to Maryland’s significant interests in pro- tecting public safety and preventing crime."

They reversed the lower court ruling.

See? Your original premise, and the premise of those moronic, hyper-excited gun-nut sites is dead wrong.

Do you have a right to defend yourself any place that you are, even if it's not your property?

 

[Oldguy]

Do you have a right to defend yourself any place that you are, even if it's not your property?

What the hell does that have to do with this case?

But, the answer is yes. The Supreme Court ruled in both Heller and McDonald that the right to keep and bear arms for personal protection in the home is an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution and it applies to both federal enclaves like DC and the individual states.

What the Court did NOT do is expand that right to include carrying a firearm outside the home anywhere, any time. They left that up to the various state and local governments to regulate. The Court CLEARLY said that the right to keep and bear arms, though a protected individual right, IS SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS and the case in question merely ruled on the constitutionality of Maryland's law.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Do you have a right to defend yourself any place that you are, even if it's not your property?

What the hell does that have to do with this case?

But, the answer is yes. The Supreme Court ruled in both Heller and McDonald that the right to keep and bear arms for personal protection in the home is an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution and it applies to both federal enclaves like DC and the individual states.

What the Court did NOT do is expand that right to include carrying a firearm outside the home anywhere, any time. They left that up to the various state and local governments to regulate. The Court CLEARLY said that the right to keep and bear arms, though a protected individual right, IS SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS and the case in question merely ruled on the constitutionality of Maryland's law.

No Heller only mentions a right to defend inside your home not outside your home and isn't that what the lower court was ruling on?

 

[Contumacious]

Elections have consequences. The collectivists are good at smoke screens and distorting the truth. The above post is a great example. It's a cancer. Tyrants have always been offended by the concept of Individual Liberty. Too bad, too many, are to preoccupied to see the threat for what it is.

You know what is the most depressing about this Intense? That there is a large portion of the population that is relishing this decision saying "I told you so, you're wrong!" while their civil liberties our devoured by their own Consent.

Still, a jury can still practice Jury Nullifcation to override the Courts

Yes, indeed.

.

 

[there4eyeM]

So the people are only the collective when it's guns and individuals when it's not?

I don't get that the collective sense of 'people' is different in the citations.

There's a lot of things you don't get. I suggest some remedial training.

One thing I get is tired of responses like this when all respect has been shown. But clearly such an approach only displays limited capacities and, so, must be overlooked. Thus, dialog is over.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't get that the collective sense of 'people' is different in the citations.

There's a lot of things you don't get. I suggest some remedial training.

One thing I get is tired of responses like this when all respect has been shown. But clearly such an approach only displays limited capacities and, so, must be overlooked. Thus, dialog is over.

I don't give respect to anti gunners because they deserve none.

 

[OriginalShroom]

I just finished reading the opinion, a task I always hate doing.

Legalize is not my native language.

However, this one wasn't too bad to understand.

The ruling didn't take away the gun owner's right to "Keep and Bear arms". It simply upheld the State of Maryland's "May Issue" policy. A policy I strongly disagree with and a policy I hope the voters of Maryland get changed.

Until the SCotUS rules that "May Issue" is unconstitutional, which is my personal belief, we will have to put up with the Liberal, anti-gun States that have it instead of "Shall Issue".

I believe that there are still only 8 States left that are "May Issue"; California, Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Mass, Delaware, and Maryland. Illinois will most likely also become a "May Issue" since they are being forced by the SCotUS to allow Conceal Carry.

 

[Papawx3]

An arm of the federal government "deciding" what the federal government can and can't do in relation to it's infringements on individual liberties. How hypocritical is that?

 

[Contumacious]

Someone could say this is an understandable interpretation of the 2nd. 'The people' is a collective term and, as a militia is what is mentioned for the defense of a free state, the state could have armed people without providing that anyone and everyone could carry a firearm anywhere any time.
Someone could say that, but if she/he were to say it here, she/he would probably be negged by someone who prefers negativity to healthy discussion. I wish her/him luck.

Yep. You are right, That is how every tin pot dictator construe the PRIVILEGE to bear arms. But We have an UNALIENABLE RIGHT.

.

 

[Contumacious]

So how would you interpret
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment X

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.

AMENDMENT XV
Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--

Section 2.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

What's to interpret? It seems clear enough.

How do arms relate to these?

So the people are only the collective when it's guns and individuals when it's not?

Yeah, the fascists want to delete the 2A and the 13A's.

We are nothing but slaves.

.

 

[Contumacious]

The unfortunate inclusion of the word MILITIA into the second amendment has always been THE POINT OF CONTENTION about the meaning that right.

Had the FFs NOT mentioned militia as the reason every citizen ought to have the right to bear arms, there could be NO DENYING what that amendment really meant.

But the amendment itself is written rather vaguely because of the word militia.

Nonsense.

The fascists know that we are free people and that that we have an unalienable right to life. They just don't care and like to impose their will.

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The unfortunate inclusion of the word MILITIA into the second amendment has always been THE POINT OF CONTENTION about the meaning that right.

Had the FFs NOT mentioned militia as the reason every citizen ought to have the right to bear arms, there could be NO DENYING what that amendment really meant.

But the amendment itself is written rather vaguely because of the word militia.

That's a lot of bull shit your pushing in one post. give it a rest.

 

[PaulS1950]

Like the constitution itself the context of the second amendment has a preamble followed by the right.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, (preamble)
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (right) because the individuals make up the body of the militia

Throughout the constitution the phrase "the people" is used to mean the "individuals living in the United States". It is obtuse to believe that in this one situation the phrase is used to mean a collective rather than the individuals.

 

[Oldguy]

An arm of the federal government "deciding" what the federal government can and can't do in relation to it's infringements on individual liberties. How hypocritical is that?

You'll have to take that up with the writers of the Constitution.

 

[Oldguy]

Do you have a right to defend yourself any place that you are, even if it's not your property?

What the hell does that have to do with this case?

But, the answer is yes. The Supreme Court ruled in both Heller and McDonald that the right to keep and bear arms for personal protection in the home is an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution and it applies to both federal enclaves like DC and the individual states.

What the Court did NOT do is expand that right to include carrying a firearm outside the home anywhere, any time. They left that up to the various state and local governments to regulate. The Court CLEARLY said that the right to keep and bear arms, though a protected individual right, IS SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS and the case in question merely ruled on the constitutionality of Maryland's law.

No Heller only mentions a right to defend inside your home not outside your home and isn't that what the lower court was ruling on?

Yes and no. The Circuit Court upheld the constitutionality of that specific provision of Maryland law, but declined to expand its decision any farther than that. In fact, the District Court had tried to do that and the Circuit Court slapped them down, basically for judicial overreach. i.e. legislating from the bench.

 

[DaGoose]

I just finished reading the opinion, a task I always hate doing.

Legalize is not my native language.

However, this one wasn't too bad to understand.

The ruling didn't take away the gun owner's right to "Keep and Bear arms". It simply upheld the State of Maryland's "May Issue" policy. A policy I strongly disagree with and a policy I hope the voters of Maryland get changed.

Until the SCotUS rules that "May Issue" is unconstitutional, which is my personal belief, we will have to put up with the Liberal, anti-gun States that have it instead of "Shall Issue".

I believe that there are still only 8 States left that are "May Issue"; California, Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Mass, Delaware, and Maryland. Illinois will most likely also become a "May Issue" since they are being forced by the SCotUS to allow Conceal Carry.

Uhhhh.....The Illinois case hasn't even BEEN to the SCOTUS.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Three Scumbag Fourth Circuit Court Of Appeals Judges unbelievably Attempt to REVERSE the Supreme Court Ruling that the Right to Defend our lives is an individual right:

Albert Diaz - appointed by Obama

Andre M. Davis appointed by Obama

Robert Bruce King appointed by Slick Willy


OPINION

KING, Circuit Judge:

The district court permanently enjoined enforcement of
section 5-306(a)(5)(ii) of the Public Safety Article of the
Maryland Code, to the extent that it conditions eligibility for
a permit to carry, wear, or transport a handgun in public on
having "good and substantial reason" to do so. Necessary to
the entry of the court’s injunction was its trailblazing pronouncement
that the Second Amendment right to keep and
bear arms for the purpose of self-defense extends outside the
home, as well as its determination that such right is impermissibly
burdened by Maryland’s good-and-substantialreason
requirement. See Woollard v. Sheridan, 863 F. Supp.
2d 462 (D. Md. 2012). Because we disagree with the court’s
conclusion that the good-and-substantial-reason requirement
cannot pass constitutional muster, we reverse the judgment
without needlessly demarcating the reach of the Second
Amendment.

.

Hopefully this will be take to SCOTUS, I think they could get the may issue law overtruned.