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.
Unlikely.It may well leave the right to carry outside the home up to the individual states.
In these cultures, suicide is not considered a sin.
You are such a liar.Unlikely.
Both Thomas and Barrett have complained about the Second Amendment being a ‘second-class right.’
They’ll perceive the may-issue provision as a de facto ban on concealed carry and they’ll have no problem finding the votes to invalidate the New York law.
The notion of a ‘second-class’ right is ridiculous of course, the Second Amendment right is not being ‘treated differently’ than other rights.
Actually it does:The 2A says nothing about carrying arms.
Not exactly.The case is about whether guns are protected outside of homes.
You are the biggest prick on this board with guns. The shit you talk is tremendous. You may think you're pro gun, but the pro gunners cringe when you open your mouth.You are a moron……
You are the biggest prick on this board with guns. The shit you talk is tremendous. You may think you're pro gun, but the pro gunners cringe when you open your mouth.
Are you his lacky?On the contrary. He backs up what he says with real facts. Unlike the anti gun loons.
Never be so arrogant as to assume you speak for us.
You don't.
You are the biggest prick on this board with guns. The shit you talk is tremendous. You may think you're pro gun, but the pro gunners cringe when you
Are you his lacky?
Believe you me, he talks shite. He may have some knowledge 'within' America, but completely thick as fuck outside
ive only read maybe a half a dozen of his posts.Are you his lacky?
Believe you me, he talks shite. He may have some knowledge 'within' America, but completely thick as fuck outside
“May issue” allows discrimination and favoritism to contaminate the process.Unlikely.
Both Thomas and Barrett have complained about the Second Amendment being a ‘second-class right.’
They’ll perceive the may-issue provision as a de facto ban on concealed carry and they’ll have no problem finding the votes to invalidate the New York law.
The notion of a ‘second-class’ right is ridiculous of course, the Second Amendment right is not being ‘treated differently’ than other rights.
gothamist.com
Are you his lacky?
Believe you me, he talks shite. He may have some knowledge 'within' America, but completely thick as fuck outside
Actually it does:
“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
www.law.cornell.edu
Not exactly.
The Court will review the constitutionality of may-issue provisions in state conceal carry laws, where although an applicant has met the statutory requirements to obtain a concealed carry permit, the permit will not be issued unless the applicant can document a compelling reason to justify carrying a concealed firearm.
Consequently, the great majority of New York residents cannot obtain a carry permit, although they would be otherwise eligible in other states and jurisdictions.
The Court may rule narrowly addressing only the may-issue provisions, or expand its review to consider the question of carrying firearms outside of the home.
The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.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).
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.
It was the Framers’ intent that the courts determine what the Constitution means – ultimately the Supreme Court; to interpret the Founding Document and establish its meaning.Well, there are specifics to this case, but it covers something that isn't in the Second Amendment.
The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.
Consequently, the Second Amendment does say something about the carrying of firearms.
It was the Framers’ intent that the courts determine what the Constitution means – ultimately the Supreme Court; to interpret the Founding Document and establish its meaning.
That certain words or phrases aren’t in the text of the Constitution doesn’t mean the concepts and principles they engender are beyond the authority of the courts to review.
The right to privacy, the right to marry, and the right to decide whether to have a child or not are all protected liberties safeguarded by the Constitution – that the words ‘privacy’ or ‘marriage’ might not be present in no manner undermines the courts’ authority to invalidate laws and measures which seek to violate the right to privacy or the right to marry.
As Justice Kennedy explained in Lawrence:
“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”
Likewise, the Framers did not presume to have a comprehensive, finite understanding of the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment – the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, although the word ‘individual’ is nowhere to be found in the text of the Amendment.
The same is true concerning the carrying of firearms; indeed, the courts have already heard cases challenging prohibitions on carrying firearms. In 2013 the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Illinois could not ban the carrying of concealed firearms by refusing to issue permits to do so.
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).
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.
