When 2nd Amendment Saves Lives

[progressive hunter]

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.

.

the 2nd is specific as to whos right it is,, and if you read the 9-10th you will see specifics as to who is in control of that right,,

THE PEOPLE,,

CASE CLOSED,,

 

[Abatis]

the 2nd is specific as to whos right it is,, and if you read the 9-10th you will see specifics as to who is in control of that right,,

THE PEOPLE,,

CASE CLOSED,,

None of which applied to state governments. Those declarations are made as to the relationship of "the people" (and the states) to the powers of the federal government.

This NY case is examining state law.

How the federal 2nd Amendment applies, when it never was intended to, or held to apply until 2010, is what will be determined.

 

[progressive hunter]

None of which applied to state governments. Those declarations are made as to the relationship of "the people" (and the states) to the powers of the federal government.

This NY case is examining state law.

How the federal 2nd Amendment applies, when it never was intended to, or held to apply until 2010, is what will be determined.

not according to the 9-10th amendments,,

anything else is a usurpation of the constitution,,

 

[BULLDOG]

And morons like you are living proof that in our current "enlightened" nation, the Federalist's arguments against adding a bill of rights, and warnings of the dangers to liberty if one was added, were absolutely correct.

So now you are against the bill of rights. How trumpian of you.

 

[progressive hunter]

So now you are against the bill of rights. How trumpian of you.

can you explain that?? I dont see him saying that,,

 

[BULLDOG]

can you explain that?? I dont see him saying that,,

He said the federalist argued against the bill of rights, and they were right to do so. Seems obvious to me.

 

[progressive hunter]

He said the federalist argued against the bill of rights, and they were right to do so. Seems obvious to me.

well considering youre a liar and an idiot nothing that seems obvious to you means shit,,

I assume you running away the other day means you are now clear on the 2nd and know only the people decide and not the state or feds,,

 

[Abatis]

So now you are against the bill of rights. How trumpian of you.

Just when I thought you couldn't have your head up your ass any further . . .

You show what an overachiever you are.

 

[BULLDOG]

well considering youre a liar and an idiot nothing that seems obvious to you means shit,,

I assume you running away the other day means you are now clear on the 2nd and know only the people decide and not the state or feds,,

You assume so much that just isn't so. Perhaps you don't have real life that takes precedence over a silly internet discussion board, but some of us do. So how long have you claimed to be one of those batshit crazy sovereign citizens who doesn't believe in state or federal laws?

 

[maybelooking]

Just when I thought you couldn't have your head up your ass any further . . .

You show what an overachiever you are.

no doubt he can see his tonsils!!

 

[Abatis]

He said the federalist argued against the bill of rights, and they were right to do so. Seems obvious to me.

And?

You are so clueless.

That the Federalists 'lost' the debate over adding a bill of rights doesn't mean their arguments were wrong.

Their warnings, their fears, their predictions of the dangers to liberty from people designing to usurp, (like you), misconstructing the words of the provisions and inventing powers where none were ever conferred, have all been proven correct.

How does it feel to be the embodiment, the awful culmination, the horrible fulfillment of the Federalist's warnings?

.

 

[progressive hunter]

You assume so much that just isn't so. Perhaps you don't have real life that takes precedence over a silly internet discussion board, but some of us do. So how long have you claimed to be one of those batshit crazy sovereign citizens who doesn't believe in state or federal laws?

how am I a sovereign people when I am defending the constitution as written??

youre the radical thats changing the clear meaning of it to make a flawed point,, thats why you ran away because you couldnt argue with facts,,

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

And you’re entitled to your opinion as to the meaning of the Amendment.

As a fact of law, however, the collective right argument was rejected in favor of the individual right.

And as that right is unconnected with militia service, the individual right concerns the carrying of firearms by citizens – in or outside of the home.

That the Supreme Court got it ‘wrong’ isn’t a valid argument; that the Heller Court was trying to appease conservatives is likewise not a valid argument.

In time that may change with a future Court overturning Heller/McDonald.

Until that time Heller/McDonald is current Second Amendment jurisprudence; it is what the Second Amendment means, as determined by the Supreme Court.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"such as self-defense within the home"

“Such as”

As in, one among others, one example of others – in this case the right to carry outside of the home as well as inside the home.

We know that the right to carry outside of the home is in the Second Amendment because the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals addressed a case from Illinois concerning that right in 2013 – an appellate court would not have reviewed such a law if carrying outside of the home was not within the scope of the Second Amendment.

We know that the right to carry outside of the home is in the Second Amendment because the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case concerning the carrying of firearms outside of the home this Term – again, the Court would not have decided to do so if the issue was outside of the purview of the Second Amendment.

The right to carry outside of the home is in fact in the Second Amendment, as determined by the Heller Court.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I understand the role of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court could, if they chose, decide that the Second Amendment allows individuals to keep "bear arms" if they choose. As ridiculous as it sounds, the Supreme Court has been ridiculous in the past.

The reality is that Heller doesn't say what you think it says. You take one quote from a whole body of text, and ignore the main part of what they said.

What I think is irrelevant – it has nothing to do with what I think.

It is a settled, accepted fact of law that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service.

The right to self-defense.

And the right to carry a firearm both in the home and outside.

My citation from Heller was one of many in the decision documenting the right to carry a firearm.

Your argument is with Scalia and the four other justices who voted with him – not me.

 

[Kilroy2]

All states allow for concealed carry.

yes you are correct that all states allow for concealed carry but most (and not all states) do require a permit and certain buildings and locations are designated as strictly forbidden to carry a concealed weapon. If they require a permit it does mean that they can deny that permit with regard for concealed carry.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yet why do some states allow concealed weapons while others do not

They don’t – all the states allow for the concealed carry of firearms.

 

[Kilroy2]

A "well regulated militia" is a descriptive term that is an acknowledgement of a militia company's high degree of skill and readiness in military exercise. It really describes a principle, an aspirational goal of opitimal perfection in operational order and condition to be attained and maintained by a military force. For a particular militia unit to ever be described as "well regulated" is an accolade, a compliment on their expertness in military exercise and practice (see Federalist 29).

The term has NOTHING to do with regulations or any government body being authorized to write or enforce regulations.

That is especially true for the term's use in the 2nd Amendment. This is not to say that no regulations for the militia can be writen and enforced, it just means that such authority and action does not (can not) flow from the 2nd Amendment.

As a legal point, in actual action and application, the 2nd Amendment has never been inspected to inform or held to inform upon any aspect of militia organization, training, control or deployment. The entirety of government authority over the militia is contained in the body of the Constitution, Art I, § 8, cl's 15 & 16 (Congress) and Art II, § 2, cl 1 (President).

.

You still would have to take the time period into consideration when the word was used in the 2nd amendment.

Militia when used over 200 years ago by a new nation that had no military forces does have a specific meaning in that time frame.

if you expect war with England and have no military then if the nation is to survive. They need to come up with people who have guns and willing to fight.

The militia is an outgrowth of an English common law institution. The word itself dates back to 1590. Originally, the word simply meant soldiers in the service of the state. By the mid-17th Century, however, it had taken on connotations of a civilian military force.

thus both meaning apply to a military force.

Still apply that to todays standard when the US as a country has a fully armed military. Militia in todays world would only still apply to state military, , state guard, state militia, or state military reserve. They exist but when called to duty they do not bring there own guns as it is expected that the state will supply them with weapons.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is clear that case law decisions are interpreted differently by each state.

Incorrect.

The states don’t ‘interpret’ the Second Amendment, the courts do.

The states are at liberty to enact firearm regulatory measures provided those measures are consistent with Second Amendment case law.

The reason why firearm laws differ from state to state is because some states enact only a few measures, others none at all.

But the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘compel’ the states to have all the same firearm regulatory measures.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

In your opinion, not as a fact of law.

And the Second Amendment is not ‘vague’ – to understand its meaning and scope one needs only to read Heller/McDonald.