"shall not be infringed"


PDA






bja5006
December 2, 2008, 01:05 AM
forgive me if i'm missing something, but aren't laws like those in NYC in direct conflict with the 2nd Amendment? i can try to understand banning concealed weapons, but to ban weapons alltogether seems.... well, unconstitutional. i'm talking about carrying weapons, not buying or storing at home.

i know there is a process for obtaining a permit in places like that, but to be told NO because one cant produce police records of recent threats or whatnot...? *ahem maryland *ahem

it just seems like one needs PERMISSION to carry out a RIGHT. last time i read 2A, it says to "keep and bear arms", not just own them.

am i alone in my confuddlement?

If you enjoyed reading about ""shall not be infringed"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sinixstar
December 2, 2008, 01:08 AM
so file a lawsuit.

cbrgator
December 2, 2008, 01:12 AM
+1 ...

M203Sniper
December 2, 2008, 01:14 AM
Fight for you rights.

TAB
December 2, 2008, 01:16 AM
You need a permit to legally have a larage gathering every where in the US... all of our rights have infringment... always have.

bja5006
December 2, 2008, 01:26 AM
i live in Pennsylvania and have my permit, so i've got my rights (even though i paid $26 for them :scrutiny: )

but when i leave the mean streets of State College (one of the top 20 best places to live in the US) and go to utopias like Baltimore, i would become a criminal as soon as i got off the interstate. i know that most permits dont cross state lines, but Maryland's pretty much tells you where to stick your application once filled out

and NYC!?!? minimum THREE YEARS jailtime for being caught with a loaded gun! (according to the DA for the Plaxico Burress case) are you nuts!

Sinixstar
December 2, 2008, 01:37 AM
i live in Pennsylvania and have my permit, so i've got my rights (even though i paid $26 for them )

but when i leave the mean streets of State College (one of the top 20 best places to live in the US) and go to utopias like Baltimore, i would become a criminal as soon as i got off the interstate. i know that most permits dont cross state lines, but Maryland's pretty much tells you where to stick your application once filled out

and NYC!?!? minimum THREE YEARS jailtime for being caught with a loaded gun! (according to the DA for the Plaxico Burress case) are you nuts!

3 and 1/2 actually...

Hanafuda
December 2, 2008, 01:50 AM
yeah, we can't be content with Heller. The court's opinion, while strong, is narrow ... you have the personal right to possess a firearm, including a handgun if you choose - loaded, unlocked, and ready to use - in your home. That's great, but it needs more cowbell. Eventually, if many other states start going the way of New York, the SUPCT is gonna have to deal with the various methods that states are using to infringe on the right they've already affirmed.

shotgunjoel
December 2, 2008, 01:58 AM
Yeah here in the great state of illinois where the voice of Chicago drowns out all others you have to get a Firearms Owner ID to posess guns or even ammo. Plus we have a 24 hour wait on long guns, 48 on handguns, no concealed carry except for active and retired police. Oh and no SBSs, SBRs, machine guns or silencers. The police can't even have silencers. Nothing like "shall not be infringed" Hey at least we don't have to register our guns, just ourselves. Us "down state" also apoligize for certain persons on national interest.

Old Fuff
December 2, 2008, 02:03 AM
In many ways, places such as Washington D.C., New York City and Chicago pay no attention to the Bill of Right or the Constitution. What rights you have depends on who you are and who you know. It's been that way forever and it's not likely to change. The reason is because the people who live there accept that this is the way, and go along with it. :banghead:

Sinixstar
December 2, 2008, 02:21 AM
In many ways, places such as Washington D.C., New York City and Chicago pay no attention to the Bill of Right or the Constitution. What rights you have depends on who you are and who you know. It's been that way forever and it's not likely to change. The reason is because the people who live there accept that this is the way, and go along with it.


In densely populated areas like NYC or Chicago - (population density of 27,000+/sqmi NYC, 12,000+/sqmi Chicago) - there is an argument to be made that one's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness could well be threatened by the mere act of firing in self defense.

Which right supersedes which?

I can see both sides of the argument there. Does the constitution state that the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Of course it does. At the time, it also said slaves were 3/5 of a person, and should be taxed as such.

JDoe
December 2, 2008, 02:40 AM
forgive me if i'm missing something, but aren't laws like those in NYC in direct conflict with the 2nd Amendment? ...

...it just seems like one needs PERMISSION to carry out a RIGHT. last time i read 2A, it says to "keep and bear arms", not just own them.

The 2nd doesn't apply to the states yet. :) However there are a couple of cases before various circuits of the supreme court that will likely result in that happening. Soon.

Google incorporation of the second amendment (http://www.google.com/search?q=incorporation+of+the+second+amendment&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

expvideo
December 2, 2008, 03:33 AM
Ummm... do a search? I'm pretty sure most of us are aware of the 2A. That being said, +1 on "file a lawsuit".

Tyris
December 2, 2008, 05:25 AM
In short the 2nd amendment has no teeth and there are no repercussions or even professional recourse for anyone who makes unconstitutional law. Not even a slap on the wrist for the law maker.

They'll continue to do so until people start to tar and feather them. Sadly we're past that and no one has the balls or tar and feathers in good supply.

-T

JDoe
December 2, 2008, 06:32 AM
Ummm... do a search? I'm pretty sure most of us are aware of the 2A. That being said, +1 on "file a lawsuit".

No really, do a search. The lawsuit likely to result in incorporation of the 2nd was filed years ago.

We should see the 2nd incorporated within 3 months.

How would you "file a lawsuit?"

everallm
December 2, 2008, 08:04 AM
Of the Bill of Rights, 2A is probably the most obvious one that has not been incorporated. The reasons for this are many and varied, none good, but means that 2A is not binding on the individual states.

(As a side bar, the reasons, many of which were heavily tainted due to pre and post Reconstruction "Jim Crow" laws and racism are a useful stick to poke arrogant gun controllers with........)

Back on topic.....

Until 2A lawsuits run through the system, builds case law and become either formally or de-facto incorporated then each state can restrict or bar to it's hearts content.

In addition, the Heller verdict talked of but deliberately avoided quantifying exactly what "reasonable restrictions" are and what level of scrutiny 2A law requires.

When both the Chicago and California (Nordyke) case end then we will have a far better idea of what is immediately achievable and what are the next steps.

To the "helpful" ones saying "File a lawsuit".......Against who, on what grounds, in which jurisdiction, on which basis of (non-existent) case law, paid for out of whose capacious pockets, etc....?

No Incorporation, no case law = bugger all chance of success.

On the assumption that Chicago and/or Nordyke are both successful AND lead towards incorporation THEN further challenges can be entertained. Trying to jump the gun before a sound legal framework is in place will just start to build bad (for 2A) case law.

For example I would not be at all surprised if that arrogant idiot Plaxico Burress's lawyer tries to use some variant of RKBA to justify his clients actions. Any one think that would be a good thing......?

Old Fuff
December 2, 2008, 10:09 AM
In densely populated areas like NYC or Chicago - (population density of 27,000+/sqmi NYC, 12,000+/sqmi Chicago) - there is an argument to be made that one's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness could well be threatened by the mere act of firing in self defense.

In which case the police should be prohibited from carrying firearms. Chicago bans private citizens from owning handguns, but allows certain government officials and office holders to do so. Most of the concealed weapons licenses issued in NYC go to those that are part of the ruling class and others that are favorably connected to them. Celebrities of various kinds can often obtain a license. But their guns are apparently loaded with benign bullets that aren’t dangerous.

Sure….. :barf:

Last but not least I would point out that both of the specified cities are filled to the brim with handguns and other kinds of firearms. The only thing is, they aren’t legally owned. Hopefully this will be changed. One’s civil rights should not be conditionally dictated by where they happen to reside.

Bubba613
December 2, 2008, 11:13 AM
and NYC!?!? minimum THREE YEARS jailtime for being caught with a loaded gun! (according to the DA for the Plaxico Burress case) are you nuts!
No, 3 1/2 yrs of jailtime for being caught with a loaded gun, without a permit.
NYC does not, to my knowledge, outlaw handguns altogether. And I have heard of people carrying legally in NYC. The process is onerous and heavily weighted against the average citizen, but it's possible. It would probably pass Heller scrutiny.

LaEscopeta
December 2, 2008, 12:59 PM
It would probably pass Heller scrutiny.Maybe, but let's not give up hope yet. Heller did say the 2cd was not a right of anyone to carry any weapon in any location for any purpose what so ever. And it said nothing in the decision should cast doubt on long standing restrictions on carrying weapons in sensitive locations, like court houses.

But it also said it is the right of law abiding citizens to keep the sorts of weapons in common use of the time, and bear them for traditional lawful purposes, like self defense. If the SCOTUS could find concealed carry in general is a traditional lawful use, and the CCW permit process in NYC is slated towards the rich and famous (no equal protection under the Law) we have a chance winning in NYC.

Old Fuff
December 2, 2008, 01:22 PM
The process (in NYC) is onerous and heavily weighted against the average citizen,

That has to be the biggest understatement in this whole thread. :fire:

Harve Curry
December 2, 2008, 01:33 PM
NY's Sullivan law could be the oldest offending unConstitutional law still standing. (Even Tombstone Arizona repealed they're no guns in Tombstone about 15 years ago.)
It is long overdue to file suits to repeal that 100+ year old Sullivan law and the ones that go with it. It's been around so long a majority of NY states population believe it's needed and even some gun enthusiaist believe it's needed they're. The best defence is a good offense, sue them.

Old Fuff
December 2, 2008, 02:26 PM
The gun law in Tombstone, and a similar one earlier in Dodge City, Kansas are a bit misunderstood.

They problem both had was that “cowboys,” both the real kind and outlaws, would come into town, get drunk, and then ride out while shooting at brightly lit lamps. These were fueled with gas or kerosene, and if one was broken it could easily start a fire. Once one was started and got going it was almost impossible to stop. Tombstone’s business district in fact, was burned down twice.

There was also a problem with “sporting men” getting into gunfights between themselves or they’re customers who had imbibed too much redeye and/or come out on the low side of winning at cards or whatever.

In both Kansas and Arizona there were absolutely no restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms of any kind, just carrying them around. If you forget about fiction and Hollywood and check out the history you’ll find that both places were pretty safe for ordinary residents, with shootings few and far between.

In New York City the law was passed so that one political faction that was in power could arm their own thugs while preventing others from doing the same – or at least doing so legally. The motive behind the Sullivan Law was totally corrupt and had everything to do with keeping legal firearms out of the hands of those they wanted to be disarmed. The same remains today.

everallm
December 2, 2008, 03:40 PM
On of the points folks are forgetting with regard to the Chicago suit is that if successful, it is a large stake poised over the heart of ANY "home rule" restrictions by counties/municipalities around 2A.

Based on that, post incorporation, the next potentially achievable steps would be, in no particular order.

NYC and the Sullivan Act.
(Home rule being excessively greater than the state laws, Sullivan Act being biased restriction under color of law etc)

New Jersey/California and magazine size restrictions and cosmetic feature bans.

For those rooting for a repeal of AWB and all states CCW.....don't hold your breath based on Heller for a good long time.

It's the old saw....How do you eat an elephant....one mouthful at a time

CoRoMo
December 2, 2008, 07:09 PM
KEEP and BEAR = OWN and CARRY (no infringement allowed)

7.62X25mm
December 3, 2008, 02:52 AM
Yeah, that's pretty much what Heller said. You have the right to keep and bear.

NOW -- Let's see the US Atty. General enforce the SCOTUS ruling in Heller.

TAB
December 3, 2008, 03:09 AM
KEEP and BEAR = OWN and CARRY (no infringement allowed)


Ever think they didn't mean carry, they ment bring to bear as in offensive fire against the goverment?

Ok for those that have not read heller( and there are several in this thread), I'll give you the cliff notes.

What it said was, owning a gun in the home was legal, and the law in D/C banning hand guns( which is federal, not state) was illegal. Thats all it said... don't read more into it.

LaEscopeta
December 3, 2008, 12:09 PM
What it said was, owning a gun in the home was legal, and the law in D/C banning hand guns( which is federal, not state) was illegal. Thats all it said... don't read more into it.From Page 1 of the Heller decision Syllabus: [The Second Abmentment protects] “…an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

Ibid, page 2, confirms the interpretations of the previous Miller case that “The 'militia' comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense…” and “…the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time.”

7.62X25mm
December 3, 2008, 02:17 PM
Quote:
KEEP and BEAR = OWN and CARRY (no infringement allowed)
Ever think they didn't mean carry, they ment bring to bear as in offensive fire against the goverment?

Ok for those that have not read heller( and there are several in this thread), I'll give you the cliff notes.

Skip the Cliff Notes -- Scalia goes into "bear" rather at length. In addition to "be under the service of" it pretty much means "to carry."

That's a new historical critical view -- which is what Scailia is doing.

If you enjoyed reading about ""shall not be infringed"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!