Second Amendment rights.

[M14 Shooter]

I carry firearms in order to defend my life.

Yes.... and...?

Alzheimer's sufferer?

#125 (permalink)

The freedom of speech is limited under conditions where the act in question harms others.
Thus, harming others is a legitimate reason to limit the exercise of a right.
The legitimacy of limits on the right to arms should be examined in that context.
__________________

Yes... and?

The point was that NO right exists beyond the point where it harms someone else, and so restrictions on actions beyond that point do not infringe on the right in question.

The 2nd doesn't protect you if you murder someone with a gun for exactly the same reason the 1st doesnt protect you if you slander them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In Heller the court ruled there is a fundamental right to self-defense; and as the handgun is the most common form of self-defense chosen by Americans, its possession is Constitutionally protected.

Consider too:

Heller refused to allow the ban on handguns - the class of gun most used to commit crimes - in a city with a high crime rate.

That is, the ban on handguns, in the worst context possible, did not pass any level of scrutiny available to the court.

Given that, there's no argument that bans on guns less often used in crime in areas with less crime will pass similar scrutiny.

I just thought about how Jillian will have no clue as to what any of this means.

 

[Contumacious]

Yes.... and...?

Alzheimer's sufferer?

#125 (permalink)

The freedom of speech is limited under conditions where the act in question harms others.
Thus, harming others is a legitimate reason to limit the exercise of a right.
The legitimacy of limits on the right to arms should be examined in that context.
__________________

Yes... and?

The point was that NO right exists beyond the point where it harms someone else, and so restrictions on actions beyond that point do not infringe on the right in question.

The 2nd doesn't protect you if you murder someone with a gun for exactly the same reason the 1st doesnt protect you if you slander them.

So that we are clear, my possessing a gun NEVER infringes on any of your rights.

The ONLY occassion where your rights might be adversely affected are if I unlawfully used my firearm in a manner which caused you actual physical harm.

Correct?

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Alzheimer's sufferer?

#125 (permalink)

The freedom of speech is limited under conditions where the act in question harms others.
Thus, harming others is a legitimate reason to limit the exercise of a right.
The legitimacy of limits on the right to arms should be examined in that context.
__________________

Yes... and?

The point was that NO right exists beyond the point where it harms someone else, and so restrictions on actions beyond that point do not infringe on the right in question.

The 2nd doesn't protect you if you murder someone with a gun for exactly the same reason the 1st doesnt protect you if you slander them.

So that we are clear, my possessing a gun NEVER infringes on any of your rights.
The ONLY occassion where your rights might be adversely affected are if I unlawfully used my firearm in a manner which caused you actual physical harm.
Correct?

Almost.
Also included is an event where you unlawfully use your firearm in a manner which places me in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

 

[Contumacious]

Yes... and?

The point was that NO right exists beyond the point where it harms someone else, and so restrictions on actions beyond that point do not infringe on the right in question.

The 2nd doesn't protect you if you murder someone with a gun for exactly the same reason the 1st doesnt protect you if you slander them.

So that we are clear, my possessing a gun NEVER infringes on any of your rights.
The ONLY occassion where your rights might be adversely affected are if I unlawfully used my firearm in a manner which caused you actual physical harm.
Correct?

Almost.
Also included is an event where you unlawfully use your firearm in a manner which places me in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

An example of that would be..............?

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So that we are clear, my possessing a gun NEVER infringes on any of your rights.
The ONLY occassion where your rights might be adversely affected are if I unlawfully used my firearm in a manner which caused you actual physical harm.
Correct?

Almost.
Also included is an event where you unlawfully use your firearm in a manner which places me in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

An example of that would be..............?

Firing it up in the air while in a populated area.
Pointing it at me while demanding my money.

 

[Contumacious]

Almost.
Also included is an event where you unlawfully use your firearm in a manner which places me in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

An example of that would be..............?

Firing it up in the air while in a populated area.
Pointing it at me while demanding my money.

OK we are in agreement.

The ONLY occassion where your rights might be adversely affected are if I unlawfully used my firearm in a manner which caused you actual physical harm.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

An example of that would be..............?

Firing it up in the air while in a populated area.
Pointing it at me while demanding my money.

OK we are in agreement.

The ONLY occassion where your rights might be adversely affected are if I unlawfully used my firearm in a manner which caused you actual physical harm.

Almost.
Also included is an event where you unlawfully use your firearm in a manner which places me in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

 

[waltky]

Granny says dey'll have to pry her Mossburg 12ga. from her cold, dead hands...

Cases lining up to ask Supreme Court to clarify Second Amendment rights
A funny thing has happened in the three years since gun-rights activists won their biggest victory at the Supreme Court. They’ve been on a losing streak in the lower courts.

The activists found the holy grail in 2008 when the Supreme Court’s 5 to 4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller said the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right to own a firearm unconnected to military service. The court followed it up with McDonald v. Chicago two years later, holding that the amendment applies not just to gun control laws passed by Congress but to local and state laws as well. The decisions were seen as a green light to challenge gun restrictions across the country, and the lawsuits have come raining down — more than two a week, according to the anti-gun Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. But it is the Brady Center that is crowing about the results.

“Three years and more than 400 legal challenges later, courts — so far — have held that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller was narrow and limited, and that the Second Amendment does not interfere with the people’s right to enact legislation protecting families and communities from gun violence,” the center said in a report optimistically titled “Hollow Victory?” Even those challenging gun restrictions acknowledge that the courts have been unwilling to expand upon the basic right that most people agree Heller bestowed: the ability to keep a handgun in one’s home for self-defense purposes. The subsequent rulings “clearly highlight the struggles lower courts are having after receiving the Supreme Court’s guidance in Heller and McDonald,” said Antigone Peyton, an Alexandria lawyer. “They’re afraid to be out front on the law.”

As Maryland’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, put it: “If the Supreme Court . . .meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly.” If the court has more to say, two men from opposite sides of the Potomac River are hoping it will accept their cases in order to do so. In the Maryland case, Charles F. Williams Jr. is challenging his 2008 conviction in Prince George’s County of violating the state’s prohibition on wearing, carrying or transporting a firearm in public without a permit. Williams had his legally acquired gun in a bag as he traveled from his girlfriend’s home to his own. Williams acknowledges that he had not applied for a permit. But his attorney, Stephen Halbrook, says that shouldn’t matter: the Maryland law is so restrictive that it “basically says ordinary people can’t get one.” He argues in his petition that the law violates the Supreme Court’s “analyses and plain statements in Heller and McDonald that the right to bear arms exists outside the home.”

MORE

 

[FA_Q2]

Granny says dey'll have to pry her Mossburg 12ga. from her cold, dead hands...

Cases lining up to ask Supreme Court to clarify Second Amendment rights
A funny thing has happened in the three years since gun-rights activists won their biggest victory at the Supreme Court. They’ve been on a losing streak in the lower courts.

The activists found the holy grail in 2008 when the Supreme Court’s 5 to 4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller said the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right to own a firearm unconnected to military service. The court followed it up with McDonald v. Chicago two years later, holding that the amendment applies not just to gun control laws passed by Congress but to local and state laws as well. The decisions were seen as a green light to challenge gun restrictions across the country, and the lawsuits have come raining down — more than two a week, according to the anti-gun Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. But it is the Brady Center that is crowing about the results.

“Three years and more than 400 legal challenges later, courts — so far — have held that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller was narrow and limited, and that the Second Amendment does not interfere with the people’s right to enact legislation protecting families and communities from gun violence,” the center said in a report optimistically titled “Hollow Victory?” Even those challenging gun restrictions acknowledge that the courts have been unwilling to expand upon the basic right that most people agree Heller bestowed: the ability to keep a handgun in one’s home for self-defense purposes. The subsequent rulings “clearly highlight the struggles lower courts are having after receiving the Supreme Court’s guidance in Heller and McDonald,” said Antigone Peyton, an Alexandria lawyer. “They’re afraid to be out front on the law.”

As Maryland’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, put it: “If the Supreme Court . . .meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly.” If the court has more to say, two men from opposite sides of the Potomac River are hoping it will accept their cases in order to do so. In the Maryland case, Charles F. Williams Jr. is challenging his 2008 conviction in Prince George’s County of violating the state’s prohibition on wearing, carrying or transporting a firearm in public without a permit. Williams had his legally acquired gun in a bag as he traveled from his girlfriend’s home to his own. Williams acknowledges that he had not applied for a permit. But his attorney, Stephen Halbrook, says that shouldn’t matter: the Maryland law is so restrictive that it “basically says ordinary people can’t get one.” He argues in his petition that the law violates the Supreme Court’s “analyses and plain statements in Heller and McDonald that the right to bear arms exists outside the home.”

MORE

Sad to see that even when the court rules that the lower courts will ignore the precedent set. They are supposed to be following what the SCOTUS set.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Granny says dey'll have to pry her Mossburg 12ga. from her cold, dead hands...

Cases lining up to ask Supreme Court to clarify Second Amendment rights
A funny thing has happened in the three years since gun-rights activists won their biggest victory at the Supreme Court. They’ve been on a losing streak in the lower courts.

The activists found the holy grail in 2008 when the Supreme Court’s 5 to 4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller said the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right to own a firearm unconnected to military service. The court followed it up with McDonald v. Chicago two years later, holding that the amendment applies not just to gun control laws passed by Congress but to local and state laws as well. The decisions were seen as a green light to challenge gun restrictions across the country, and the lawsuits have come raining down — more than two a week, according to the anti-gun Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. But it is the Brady Center that is crowing about the results.

“Three years and more than 400 legal challenges later, courts — so far — have held that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller was narrow and limited, and that the Second Amendment does not interfere with the people’s right to enact legislation protecting families and communities from gun violence,” the center said in a report optimistically titled “Hollow Victory?” Even those challenging gun restrictions acknowledge that the courts have been unwilling to expand upon the basic right that most people agree Heller bestowed: the ability to keep a handgun in one’s home for self-defense purposes. The subsequent rulings “clearly highlight the struggles lower courts are having after receiving the Supreme Court’s guidance in Heller and McDonald,” said Antigone Peyton, an Alexandria lawyer. “They’re afraid to be out front on the law.”

As Maryland’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, put it: “If the Supreme Court . . .meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly.” If the court has more to say, two men from opposite sides of the Potomac River are hoping it will accept their cases in order to do so. In the Maryland case, Charles F. Williams Jr. is challenging his 2008 conviction in Prince George’s County of violating the state’s prohibition on wearing, carrying or transporting a firearm in public without a permit. Williams had his legally acquired gun in a bag as he traveled from his girlfriend’s home to his own. Williams acknowledges that he had not applied for a permit. But his attorney, Stephen Halbrook, says that shouldn’t matter: the Maryland law is so restrictive that it “basically says ordinary people can’t get one.” He argues in his petition that the law violates the Supreme Court’s “analyses and plain statements in Heller and McDonald that the right to bear arms exists outside the home.”

MORE

Sad to see that even when the court rules that the lower courts will ignore the precedent set. They are supposed to be following what the SCOTUS set.

You must understand D.C. vs. Heller and McDonald vs. Chicago were not great second amendment victories. The courts left to much to be interpreted in future lower court rulings. Besides Superme court rulings don't mean anything. Clintons gun ban is a good examplke of that. The very firearms that past superme court's have ruled were protected by the second amendment were the exact firearms Clinton had baned and the Superme court allowed the ban to stand as is,

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

I have a problem with the Lautenberg Amendment. The act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.

This means, just as an example, that if a 20-year-old woman gets into an argument with her boyfriend and slaps him a couple of times, and is convicted of domestic violence, she can never, ever, FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE, own a gun. Even though no gun was involved in the domestic violence incident.

Once this amendment was passed, police officers and military members who had domestic violence convictions in their past were discharged from their duties.

This amendment was supported by a lot of whiny women who thought it would serve guys right who beat up on women. As a former abused woman, I think it is bullshit.

This amendment is an example of how our Second Amendment rights will be chipped away, circumstance by circumstance.

Repeal the Lautenberg Amendment!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Liberals often seem to want to forget there is a Second Amendment, but I support it. Not because I am a hunter or anything like that. I have heard supporters of this amendment describe it in terms of freedom from the potential of a tyrannical government. I think this makes sense.

My only question is based on this premise where is the line in terms of the regulation of weapons in the hands of the civilian population?

Individual arms, rifles, shotguns,and hand guns should be protected for the Citizen. For the State protect the right of the State to have artillery, tanks Anti tank, crew served weapons, anti air etc.

The second conveys two rights, one to the State and one to the Individual.