When 2nd Amendment Saves Lives

[Abatis]

Nonsense.

Measures are enacted by government in accordance with Constitutional case law; that case law instructs government as to what measures are valid and what measures are not, what limits and restrictions on our rights are lawful and what limits and restrictions are not.

With regard to the Second Amendment, government may enact laws requiring a background check, consistent with the Second Amendment.

Government may not enact laws prohibiting the possession of a handgun, in violation of the Second Amendment.

That these simple, fundamental facts of governance must be explained at all on a political discussion forum is ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is your conceptualization of what rights are and what the constitutional justification of laws is.

 

[Abatis]

No, it actually doesn't.

The Supreme Court ignored reality in order to give right wingers what they wanted.

In the whole of the talk about the meaning of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court failed to talk about what the Founding Fathers in the House said during the debates on the future Second Amendment.

Partly because the DC side didn't do a good job and were pushing some nonsense, but also because it's rather an inconvenient document for the Heller side and for the right.

Here's an example of their ability to twist and squirm to make it look like they're not being biased:

"At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.”"

This is a nonsense statement. Just because it CAN mean something, doesn't mean it DOES.

So they said:

"When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation."

Yes, and no. What kind of "confrontation"?

Then they wrote this:

"We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization."

Then this:

"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."

And this:

"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 carrying a weapon in an organized military unit."

Let's take a look at these:

The first, North Carolina 1776:
"That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State;"

So, clearly not bearing arms for purposes other than "defence of the state". However, this does fall outside of an "organized military unit". So as long as you're defending your state, you're allowed to "bear arms".

Pennsylvania 1776 gets more interesting:
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state"

Ah, the defence of "themselves". Does this mean an individual has the right to defend themself? Or does it mean "the people" can defend "the people"? Is it collective defense or individual defense? This isn't clear. Which is a problem for us interpreting this now.

Massachusetts 1780:
"The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence."

Ah, the people have the right to bear arms for the "common defence". This seems to push "defence of themselves" more towards "common defence" than it does "individual defence".

This is where Mississippi 1817 comes in:
"Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State."

If all these other clauses provided individual defense rights, why did Mississippi change this and say "defence of himself"? Seems to show that "themselves" and "himself" mean two very different things.

When we look at the original versions of the Second Amendment it becomes clearer.

June 8th 1789, the House proposed this version with this clause at the end:

"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Compelled to render military service in person.

17th August 1789 they proposed: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Seems pretty clear that they thought "render military service" and "bear arms" to be synonymous.

They switched back and forth with these two terms before deciding to drop the clause because they felt the government could decide who was religiously scrupulous and then prevent people from being in the militia. (they said nothing about being worried the US govt would prevent people being able to defend their individual self or hunt, for example).

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

It's also pretty clear that the Founding Fathers mean "bear arms" to mean "render military service" or "militia duty" here:

Mr Gerry said:

" Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

The reality is that the Supreme Court wanted to try and ignore History, and push for something they actually wanted.

That's a long post and you do quote and cite your sources but your primary and ultimately fatal flaw, (especially when you are discussing state provisions), is the mindset that the right to arms flows / emanates from those words and that the only way to discern what the right "is" is to "interpret" the words chosen to secure the right.

Especially for the state constitutions, the very structure of those constitutions prohibit any thought that the provision recognizing and securing the right to arms, is granting or creating or establishing the right, thus the right depends on a particular "interpretation" of those words.

The simple fact that state constitutions call out the rights of the citizens first, before a single power is conferred to government should inform you of the hierarchy of rights > powers. That many states formally call-out those rights declared in Article I as excepted out of the powers granted in subsequent Articles and those rights shall forever remain inviolate, should inform you of the original, fundamental nature of rights and the subordinate, derivitive nature of government powers.

That so many of you goofballs then invent "interpretations" for the federal 2nd Amendment that essentially mean the states ratified an amendment that surrendered to the feds all discretion and power to declare who are the state's federally approved and protected arms bearers . . . it just to stupid and legally incoherent to even contemplate.

.

 

[Abatis]

Well, there are specifics to this case, but it covers something that isn't in the Second Amendment.

Well, if the right secured by the 2ndA is a right to bear (carry) a gun for self defense in public in case of confrontation (as Cruikshank and Presser recognized and Heller has said) and the 2ndA is now incorporated against the states, then the states will be forced to recognize that right and any state or city's arbitrary and discriminatory criteria to exercise the right will be invalidated.

I do predict the power to set the manner of carry will remain in the state's domain.

 

[progressive hunter]

Well, if the right secured by the 2ndA is a right to bear (carry) a gun for self defense in public in case of confrontation (as Cruikshank and Presser recognized and Heller has said) and the 2ndA is now incorporated against the states, then the states will be forced to recognize that right and any state or city's arbitrary and discriminatory criteria to exercise the right will be invalidated.

I do predict the power to set the manner of carry will remain in the state's domain.

states dont have authority to decide that,,

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yet why do some states allow concealed weapons while others do not as an example of the many different gun laws in place and can easily be changed at any time.

It is clear that case law decisions are interpreted differently by each state. It is even interpreted differently by what political party is in power or in general how people feel about the issue.

well you can say the 2nd amendment is the basis but it has to be interpreted. Thus if a judgment ruling is unfavorable, they will eventually bring the case before the court again when they fell that they can get a favorable ruling.

because of the different ruling it is clear the 2nd amendment is not the defining issue.

There are many different rulings on the issue. The issue of public safety can weigh heavily on any interpretation.

History and tradition can play a factor. OF course the interpretation of the 2nd amendment can play a factor.

So in my opinion the 2nd amendment is not the defining factor. It is really to vague.

Militia is well defined

All states allow for concealed carry.

 

[Stryder50]

I'm not tough at all. But I have the ability to defend myself. At 75 years of age my only option is a gun.

This is why firearms are sometimes known as equalizers ~ they allow the smaller, weaker, less powerful person to not be physically bullied or assaulted without consequence.

At 71 years of age, I'm no longer as fast, agile, strong, or up to kung-fuing thugs as I might have been in my youth, my 20s-30s, especially if there is more than one. Also, over the years I've noticed that once a person is down on the ground, these thugs that would attack/assault a citizen then engage in the kicking and head stomping which can often result in serious lifelong injury and/or death.

Bottom-line is that any threat of assault/attack, or any initiated assault and/or attack has a high potential to be attempted murder, or life-long disability, or actual murder.

Therefore, I'm inclined to usually conceal carry a pistol when in public since one never knows when a threat potential might appear. I'm also inclined to shoot at first initiation of an assault/attack if display/brandishing the pistol is not discouragement enough.

While some of you sound willing to be victims of violence, and that is your Right, I decline that option and will defend myself and those with me when possible.

 

[westwall]

All states allow for concealed carry.

Untrue. You should have said, if you are rich, all states allow for concealed carry.

It's a far more accurate statement.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What's ridiculous is your conceptualization of what rights are and what the constitutional justification of laws is.

This fails as a kill the messenger fallacy.

 

[westwall]

This fails as a kill the messenger fallacy.

You can't even use the proper logical fallacy, begone pseudo intellectual...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Untrue. You should have said, if you are rich, all states allow for concealed carry.

It's a far more accurate statement.

Wrong.

All states allow for concealed carry.

That you subjectively perceive some laws to be 'unfair' doesn't change that fact

 

[progressive hunter]

Wrong.

All states allow for concealed carry.

That you subjectively perceive some laws to be 'unfair' doesn't change that fact

your premise is a lie,,

 

[westwall]

Wrong.

All states allow for concealed carry.

That you subjectively perceive some laws to be 'unfair' doesn't change that fact

The practical rule though is this, as a regular normal guy I couldn't even obtain an application for a CCW when I lived in the Bay Area.

Sean Penn, and every other rich person who wanted one, on the other hand, had no problem getting one.

So no, you ignore how the elite prevent regular folks from getting permits.

 

[Stryder50]

Handy color-coded map for reference with this one;
...

State-by-State Concealed Carry Permit Laws​

All 50 states and DC allow the concealed carry of firearms. 30 states and DC require permits and have may-issue or shall-issue permit laws, 19 states have constitutional carry laws but will also issue permits upon request, and Vermont has constitutional carry but does not issue permits.
...

State-by-State Concealed Carry Permit Laws - ProCon.org

Not all states permit open carry. View a map of the US which outlines which states currently permit open carry, those that may, and those that don't.

concealedguns.procon.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Complete 50 State Guide to Concealed Carry Laws​

The Complete 50 State Guide to Concealed Carry Laws

People considering concealed carrying for the first time need to learn how to do so legally when the laws pertaining to concealed carry vary from state to state.

aliengearholsters.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

States That Allow Concealed Carry | American Concealed​

States That Allow Concealed Carry

With more and more people deciding to purchase guns to protect themselves, one of the most asked questions is about which states allow concealed carry and which states allow open carry. Open carry refers to having a gun on you, but in plain sight. It must be in a holster and it must be visible […]

americanconcealed.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

USCCA Concealed Carry Reciprocity Map & U.S. Gun Laws | USCCA​

USCCA Concealed Carry Reciprocity Map & U.S. Gun Laws | USCCA

Learn about state gun laws & concealed carry permits using our interactive concealed carry reciprocity map. Find firearms laws & CCW travel restrictions.

www.usconcealedcarry.com

 

[Abatis]

in short (correct me if I'm wrong)

The 2nd places NO LIMITS AT ALL on the people. Only the government!!!!!!

Correct and the 2ndA doesn't create any new or different prohibitions on government than already exist from the absolute silence in the Constitution granting government any power to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen. IOW,the 2ndA does not expand upon what the government was already forbidden to do.

This fundamental constitutional principle is the primary argument of the Federalists against adding a bill of rights to the Constitution; they thought it absurd and dangerous to declare that something shall not be done, when no power was ever granted to government to act upon that interest.

See Federalist 84 (paragraph breaks added):

"I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?​

​

Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.​

​

They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."​

​

​

.

 

[Abatis]

states dont have authority to decide that,,

Why not? Where has the federal government ever claimed or established any authority to dictate to any entity over the manner of carry?

The recognition of any "right" of the private citizen to carry concealed is a recent development and entirely a creation of the state governments under their state constitutions. Looking at that history, I can not envision any review of law or practice that would permit SCOTUS to hold that a right to carry concealed is a right secured by the 2nd Amendment.

I predict SCOTUS will enforce an individual, private citizen's right to bear arms in public for self-defense and all states will be forced to recognize that right . . . But, dictating as to the actual manner of carriage, will remain in the state's prerogative.

Of course states that currently have discriminatory "may issue" policies will choose concealed carry as the manner of carriage, so, while it may not be a direct "win" by decision, the right to carry concealed will be a win that is "backed in" to.

.

 

[Stryder50]

in short (correct me if I'm wrong)

The 2nd places NO LIMITS AT ALL on the people. Only the government!!!!!!

Actually, the intent of the Constitution, and how it was written @230+ years ago, was to place limits in all areas of what a central/Federal government could do. The USA Constitution was written to constrain and limit guv'mint, not to empower and/or enlarge it.

Note the context of the time, what the 13 Colonies had endured from England which resulted in a War for Independence.

Unfortunately, barely was the ink dry so to speak and regressive factions of our Nation began looking for ways to "work around" in giving government more power and authority.

The ideological and political divide within our nation, from it's founding to present, have been these two factions.
One wants to limit and constrain Government,
the other wants to further empower and enable Government

 

[progressive hunter]

Why not? Where has the federal government ever claimed or established any authority to dictate to any entity over the manner of carry?

The recognition of any "right" of the private citizen to carry concealed is a recent development and entirely a creation of the state governments under their state constitutions. Looking at that history, I can not envision any review of law or practice that would permit SCOTUS to hold that a right to carry concealed is a right secured by the 2nd Amendment.

I predict SCOTUS will enforce an individual, private citizen's right to bear arms in public for self-defense and all states will be forced to recognize that right . . . But, dictating as to the actual manner of carriage, will remain in the state's prerogative.

Of course states that currently have discriminatory "may issue" policies will choose concealed carry as the manner of carriage, so, while it may not be a direct "win" by decision, the right to carry concealed will be a win that is "backed in" to.

.

the 2nd is clear " the right of the poeple, and if you read the 9-10th a it says the people,,

so its the people that have that authority,, no one else,,

 

[M14 Shooter]

What's ridiculous is your conceptualization of what rights are and what the constitutional justification of laws is.

He's a known liar, so...

 

[M14 Shooter]

your premise is a lie,,

He's a known liar.

 

[Abatis]

the 2nd is clear " the right of the poeple, and if you read the 9-10th a it says the people,,

so its the people that have that authority,, no one else,,

When you come across a federal law that conditions or forbids concealed carry, you have an argument in pocket.

For this instance, SCOTUS is reviewing a law from NY, a state that has no RKBA provision in its state constitution and SCOTUS is trying to establish how to apply the 2nd Amendment to the NY law, when the 2nd Amendment had zero effect on state laws until 2010 (McDonald v Chicago).

You are trying to crib together a rule to apply the Constitution that never was and never will be.

The application and enforcement of the 2nd Amendment is in its infancy, mostly because the jurisprudence of the 2nd went off the rails between 1942 and 2008. The Court itself admits in Heller, the full scope and contours of the right to arms has not been examined by the Court and applied to federal laws, what you are saying is the unequivocal rule for this state law, is premature.

A question for you; for the time before 2010, did the states posses a power to dictate the conditions and manner of gun carry in public, in accordance with the rights recognized in its state constitution?

If no, please explain how that power was prohibited to the states by the federal Constitution (according to the 10th Amendment) and/or how that one aspect of state law was in theory and practice, immune to 14th Amendment incorporation doctrine -- that the 2nd Amendment did bind state action when all courts said it did not (until 2010).

For me, the question of whether a state possesses such absolute authority after 2010, is an open one, which is why SCOTUS took the NY concealed carry case.

.