[cbrgator]

http://www.chron.com/news/article/Federal-judge-rejects-challenge-to-NY-gun-law-2159532.php

A federal judge has upheld a New York law that requires an applicant to show "a special need for self-protection" before winning a license to carry a handgun.

District Judge Cathy Seibel ruled in White Plains that the state "has an important government interest in promoting public safety and preventing crime" and that the Supreme Court left room for that interest in recent rulings expanding gun rights.

. . .

But a higher court is likely to have the final say. The plaintiffs' lawyer, Alan Gura, said he has already taken the case to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and an eventual Supreme Court decision is possible.

[svaz]

Geaux Gura!

(It's a Saints fan thing...)

[bushmaster1313]

Smart to do this in NY/2nd Circuit

Two sure losses lead right to the Supreme Court!

BTW: I take personal offense that my generalized need for self protection is not considered "special" enough.

[XD Fan]

Go, Alan!

I take personal offense that my generalized need for self protection is not considered "special" enough.

Amen, Bushmaster.

[heeler]

Well truely my best wishes to all concerned.
But I am glad I live in Texas and please understand I am not trying to be smug here because I truely feel for you folks.
Frankly my head spins when I see what so many in liberal states go through just to have their second amendment rights considered and weighed in on.

[Skribs]

I find it funny that the generalization is that "liberal" people are so up-tight about freedoms related to guns.

[bushmaster1313]

District Judge Cathy Seibel ruled in White Plains that the state "has an important government interest in promoting public safety and preventing crime"

Isn't that an argument in favor of "shall issue"?:banghead:

[cbrgator]

Isn't that an argument in favor of "shall issue"?

Not if you believe that guns can commit crimes.

The language, "an important government interest," indicates a heightened level of scrutiny. Intermediate, not strict scrutiny, to be specific. It surprises me that the judge upheld the "may-issue" law, even after reviewing it under a heightened level of scrutiny.

For the judge to uphold this law under intermediate scrutiny, once she finds public safety and crime prevention to be an "important interest," she must also find that the may-issue law is "substantially related" to that interest. I haven't read her opinion, but I would love to see that justification. How exactly is a may-issue law substantially related to the important government interest of crime prevention? I do not follow.

The good news is her opinion is entirely irrelevant and merely a stepping stone, not the last word. The 2nd Circuit at the very least, if not the SCOTUS, will hear this case. This district court is merely a formality. Gura wants this case heard by our high court.

[Curator]

Hey, its New Yawk! I'd be really surprised if a female Federal Judge in White Plains (of all places) did not find against the people having guns to protect themselves. They are all brainwashed by the public school system there and beyond hope. Besides, crooks injured in the commission of crime in NY are eligible for disability and worker's compensation. They also can use the State's court system and free lawyers to sue their victims. I left there 30 years ago and never looked back.

[Prince Yamato]

If NY goes shall-issue, I will weep tears of joy.

[galapoola]

I believe one of the strategies for Gura and others (2nd Amendment Foundation, NRA & etc.) is to sue in every state with a may/no issue law in the hope that one will be taken up by the high court. The foundation has been laid for this with Heller & McDonald so this is the next logical step. Since NY is the first to get a lower court decision it will be to the finish line quickest. NJ will be next as all indications are that the district court will announce its decision this month. The court of appeals would get both these and be done with them before same time next year and then SCOTUS can decide if they want to hear either or all lumped together and decide themselves by June of 2013. BTW, the two cases that may be taken by SCOTUS this month in this cycle are the snake guy in the national park case and the MD guy who hid his gun in the bushes. Both these guys are saying that their arrests should be voided because of Heller & McDonald. The court may hear them and the results could give us in the stupid states (i.e. NJ) the relief we seek.

[parsimonious_instead]

Interesting quirk about NY State with handguns. Because NYS is so deeply in love with "handgun registration" they want each and every handgun tied to your "pistol permit" (by default a permit to merely own and take to the range). You buy the handgun and submit a form to the County Clerk who leaves it with a judge to have it signed off on. Your newly purchased firearm waits inside your friendly dealer's vault until it's signed and you are sent a new permit with the gun's make model and serial printed on it. I don't know how many judges there are, but there are literally only one or two that sign these things promptly, the rest are indifferent or hostile to 2A, and therefore it's quite possible to wait 4-8 weeks before you can start taking the gun to the range.

[Loosedhorse]

This legal challenge may have a funny result.

If you go back far enough in Court cases, you will find a general opinion in many state courts that the licensing (or outlawing) of concealed carry was a valid government power.

The implication is that the state has NO legitimate power to limit open carry.

I wonder if that will be the ultimate outcome--supposing we haven't lost a conservative Justice by then.

[MagnumDweeb]

So it looks like Gura will be the next big gun saint. We'll have our Browning, Colt, Smith and Wesson(Don't remember the different names but they pushed the envelop once upon a time) and soon Gura.

God made man, Colt made them equal.

Smith and Wesson created the self-contained cartridges and N-frame.

Browning, it's a long list.

Gura, got us our rights back(minus new machineguns).

[gbw]

Not if you believe that guns can commit crimes.

The anti’s don’t believe that exactly. They believe guns facilitate crime, and so therefore guns encourage crime, and that crimes with guns are more dangerous.

We are foolish to deny the obvious, that they have a point. But since many of us do deny it, consider a simple example:

Case1: You’re standing with a little old lady. She demands your money. You laugh and maybe she goes to jail.

Case 2: She demands your money and sticks her snub under your nose. You do not laugh and she gets the money and maybe you or some innocent gets shot and killed.

The only difference? In C2 a successful crime occurred and the chance of a dead victim or innocent child increased by orders of magnitude. Why? She had a gun.

……………………… How exactly is a may-issue law substantially related to the important government interest of crime prevention? I do not follow.

Follow: A may issue law explicitly includes the right to deny a gun permit. For every denial fewer guns carried. Therefore fewer chances of Case 2 above occurring. Therefore the government interest in may-issue (i.e. denial).

That’s their logic, to put it in the nutshell in which it belongs.

The huge hole in their logic, the one we love so much, is that it assumes a criminal will not carry because it’s against the law. But even that’s not a complete fallacy - sometimes a criminal won’t carry if it’s illegal, won’t risk arrest when they don’t see a need to be armed. Anti’s argue that any reduction is better than nothing.

However we structure our position, we need to include the purely inescapable facts that freedoms have real costs: that the more guns there are, the fewer the restrictions on guns, and the more guns will be misused.

And, rightly or wrongly, we'd better realize that people fear gun misuse more than most other forms of crime or mischief. I think this is mainly because they don't see a need for guns. And they know how many closet-cretins there are among us.

Over time, as more people become less willing to pay those costs, and as the anti's hammer their case that guns are unnecessary to civilized society, I fear we will lose. Too many of the arguments and positions I see on our side are lame and weak and don't help.

[Standing Wolf]

I find it funny that the generalization is that "liberal" people are so up-tight about freedoms related to guns.

Funny or sickening. Lots of people just don't get the idea of liberty for all.

[TX1911fan]

GBW, good points. My counter is this. In C2, she pulls the snub nose and I pull my 1911. At least I have a chance, and I'm not executed in the street.

[CoRoMo]

District Judge Cathy Seibel ruled... ...that the Supreme Court left room for that...
I agree with the judge. They completely sold us out in that regard.

[Zoogster]

gbw the vast majority of violent crime is committed by healthy young men, not little old ladies as in your example.
Healthy young men that typically would already have the advantage over many chosen victims. Toss in a readily obtainable non-gun weapon and they really have the advantage over the portion of the population that is not healthy men.
These non-gun weapons have no hope of ever being effectively restricted to a point they won't be possessed by anyone that wants one at any time, as they consist of numerous things which are found in the majority of homes and used for various tasks. Numerous tools, kitchen knives, sporting equipment (very likely to be available to young healthy men), etc
A strong man can wield something like a blunt object with far greater effectiveness than your typical women, elderly, physically disabled, etc
So even if both sides have a blunt object, the young attacker will typically be more effective, with greater strength and dexterity, able to more readily inflict damage than well over half of the population if they were similarly armed.


A gun on the other hand results in something closer to equality.
Everyone with a gun may not be perfect, but if a society really believes in equality it would seem unfair to declare that healthy men shall be guaranteed by law to prevail in most altercations. Which is the case when guns are not present due to legal restriction. (A legal restriction the criminal is more likely to violate than their victim, and so be more inclined due to the law to be at yet an even greater advantage, being stronger, healthier, and armed with a gun.)

[cbrgator]

gbw,

There are 2 things you left out of your examples.
1) The lady who wants to rob someone at gun point will not be hindered by concealed carry laws. She will easily acquire a firearm.

2) In your Case 2, if the law is shall-issue, and not may-issue, when that lady points a gun at me, I can point one back. In a may-issue jurisdiction, only criminals are carrying.

You will have a hard time convincing me (unless you offer empirical evidence) that a criminal willing to shoot someone dead will be hindered/deterred/discouraged from acquiring a gun and carrying it illegally by some concealed carry law. If they are willing to ignore the murder ban, I'd venture to guess they don't care so much about the concealed carry ban either.

[Justin]

The anti’s don’t believe that exactly. They believe guns facilitate crime, and so therefore guns encourage crime, and that crimes with guns are more dangerous.

We are foolish to deny the obvious, that they have a point. But since many of us do deny it, consider a simple example:

Case1: You’re standing with a little old lady. She demands your money. You laugh and maybe she goes to jail.

Case 2: She demands your money and sticks her snub under your nose. You do not laugh and she gets the money and maybe you or some innocent gets shot and killed.

The only difference? In C2 a successful crime occurred and the chance of a dead victim or innocent child increased by orders of magnitude. Why? She had a gun.

So we should disarm all little old ladies (and everyone else) on the off chance that one of them intends to commit a crime, but only after she's gone to the trouble of getting a background check and filing paperwork with the state to legally carry a handgun.

However we structure our position, we need to include the purely inescapable facts that freedoms have real costs: that the more guns there are, the fewer the restrictions on guns, and the more guns will be misused.

Statistics have been showing for quite some time now that rates of violent crime have been trending down while rates of gun ownership and the numbers of people with concealed carry permits have been going up. Furthermore, those places with the strictest gun control laws tend to have higher rates of violent crime. While I won't make the total leap to more guns = less crime, it's pretty clear that there are many other factors that relate to the amount of violent crime in a given location in a much more significant way than gun availability.

[chuck pullen]

I still find it hard to believe that my home, Alabama, a very conservative state, is still "may issue."

[happygeek]

Yeah, I don't follow either GBW. England's homicide rate went up immediately following their handgun ban. Heck, their homicides by shooting went up following the ban. (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110220105210/rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf specifically pages 14 & 16, although the whole thing is interesting). Assuming that more guns or more people carrying guns causes crime to go up, why in God's name would homicides and homicides by shooting go up after a ban? :confused:

Maybe criminals don't follow gun laws? :scrutiny:

Check out http://library.npia.police.uk/docs/hors/hors298.pdf sometime, a 2006 British study on the market in illegal firearms inside their country. The executive summary dryly notes than overall firearm crime has gone up since their handgun ban, and that a 'criminal gun culture' seems to have sprung up. IMHO that 'criminal gun culture' was always there, they were just too busy attacking the legitimate gun culture to notice.

Inside our own country Chicago and D.C. stood for decades as shining examples of the effectiveness of handgun bans. The anti-gun crowd would of course argue that those areas didn't have secure borders and that criminals just brought guns in from states with weaker gun laws. Problem is our national border isn't exactly secure either. The War on Drugs has been illustrating that for decades. Then there's the aforementioned England, experimenting with a national handgun ban.

Off the top of my head, I'd have to say that almost every gun control scheme has been tried in our own country at one point or another at one place or another. The CDC did a study a few years back on whether any of those schemes were found to do much at all:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.


You also have to wonder why the anti-gun groups never seem to talk about the homicide rates in states like CA/cites like D.C. with strict gun control laws vs the homicide rates in states like, say Vermont, or cities like Seattle WA with 'weak' gun laws. The Brady Campaign does put out a yearly 'report card' with their rating of the states' gun laws and they do talk about 'gun deaths' sometimes (which include everything from justifiable homicides by the police to suicides, suicides making up the majority) ... but they never seem to talk about homicide rates. Maybe it's because the numbers don't look so good for them ...

Then there's this weirdness, gun sales seem to be going up (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/total-nics-checks) while homicides and homicides by firearm have both been going down (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html) :confused:

[ChileRelleno]

I still find it hard to believe that my home, Alabama, a very conservative state, is still "may issue. Thankfully, for all intents and purposes, the vast majority of Alabama Sheriffs are 'Shall Issue' in their approval of CCW permits.
There are a very few AL Sheriffs who deny permits of those who meet the State/Federal qualifications, if you qualify, you get your permit.

Those few who play games do not usually last long come the next Election.

[Threeband]

I still find it hard to believe that my home, Alabama, a very conservative state, is still "may issue."

I'll swap you my state's "May Issue" for your state's "May Issue"!

I'd be happy with Delaware's "May Issue".

[Tommygunn]

I still find it hard to believe that my home, Alabama, a very conservative state, is still "may issue."


I have never had a problem with my CCW -- I even renew it by mail. For all intents and purposes, atleast here in Morgan Cty., we're a "shall issue" area.
I wish we were truly "shall issue" but nothing is perfect.... Except Big Bob Gibson's BBQ.

[jon_in_wv]

I find it sickening the government continually links my ownership of a weapon to the ILLEGAL carrying and use of firearms by criminals. I will never understand what ignorance leads them to believe that disarming me or people like me stops criminals from committing crimes with firearms.

[usmarine0352_2005]

.


I hope SCOTUS hears and decides on an important 2nd Amendment case before they lose a pro-2nd Amendment judge.

[Telekinesis]

Thankfully, for all intents and purposes, the vast majority of Alabama Sheriffs are 'Shall Issue' in their approval of CCW permits.
There are a very few AL Sheriffs who deny permits of those who meet the State/Federal qualifications, if you qualify, you get your permit.

Those few who play games do not usually last long come the next Election.

What about those under 21? (I know, we're not *real* adults yet :rolleyes:)I am 20 and meet all state and federal requirements (no min age for issuance of a permit per AL state code), as well as maintain 2 other CCW permits from different states, yet my county Sheriff (Hale of Jefferson County) won't issue me a permit. Thankfully I've only got a few months of this left, but its the principle of the matter that really irks me. I can carry in 20+ other states without issue, I just can't carry at home.

To keep this on topic, I can't wait for a supreme court ruling on Shall/May Issue. By the time it actually happens, I'll probably already have my AL CCW, but it will be a nice moral victory.

[azmjs]

If the Supreme Court is to rule in favor of "shall issue" against "may issue," the effect of the ruling must be to either eliminate CCW permits altogether or else impose a national standard on CCW permitting from which no state may chose to except itself.

It's just as likely that the court will never hear or decide gainfully on a CCW case because there is no special virtue to concealment protected by the second amendment.

All states may be required against their "states rights" to permit 'open carry,' but nothing in the second amendment protects a right to carry a concealed weapon.

I don't believe for a moment that any majority in the supreme court would rule that the second amendment protects bringing powerful and deadly weapons to meetings with the president, and therefore it is impossible that the supreme court would rule that all restrictions on the carry of arms are protected.

If some restrictions are permitted, then the door is open for restrictions on concealed carry, carry in court rooms, etc etc.

[azmjs]

Which said, gun enthusiasts owe more to Alan Gura as their champion in Heller than to almost any other person in the history of the country.

The result of his law suit was the most profound pro-gun change in the history of the country's laws.

Everything after Heller, (including even McDonald if you have even the faintest belief in states rights) is just icing on the cake, frill on the sides.

[1911Tuner]

A federal judge has upheld a New York law that requires an applicant to show "a special need for self-protection" before winning a license to carry a handgun.

Seems to me that just living in NYC would qualify for a need for self-protection.

I will never understand what ignorance leads them to believe that disarming me or people like me stops criminals from committing crimes with firearms.

Because it's not about crime and it never has been. It's about control. The criminal element is a small percentage of the population. The masters are willing to accept the collateral damage caused by these types, but the thought of all the subjects being armed makes'em nervous. The armed man also tends to be more self-reliant. The masters want him to depend on government for everything...including protection.

I find it amusing that these people are so arrogant as to believe that none of us ever, ever went armed until the states started issuing concealed carry permits...that we wouldn't dare to carry a gun without their permission. This lends insight into the mind of a big government liberal. Men have been packin' since before Lexington and Concord. It's just that they've been taken a little aback that there are so many of us who want to exercise a right that we actually shouldn't have to have a permit for.

Whether we realize it or not, by applying for a carry permit, we're admitting that RKBA is a privelege granted by the government rather than a right that need not be granted by anyone. Therein lies the paradox.

[Loosedhorse]

It's just as likely that the court will never hear or decide gainfully on a CCW case because there is no special virtue to concealment protected by the second amendment.Disagree.

Most locales that bar most CCW by specifying a "need" or "proper person" requirement also bar OC, so that they are preventing most people from carrying for self-defense. The SCOTUS has already determined in Heller that the right to self-defense is fundamental, so that states (thanks, MacDonald!) must now allow some form of carry for SD, barring clear reason that a given individual is not allowed to carry, or that carry in a "sensitive area" is not allowed.

To rule otherwise would require a fundamental reversal of Heller...which is what the antis will hope for (and likely get) if we lose a conservative Justice, or Kennedy.I will never understand what ignorance leads them to believe that disarming me or people like me stops criminals from committing crimes with firearms.You may want to re-read Breyer's dissent in Heller. He used standard Brady stats on how much "gun crime" there is, and the "of course" assumption that outlawing guns = no guns = no gun crime to conclude such laws advance the "compelling government interest" of public safety.

Rulings do not require logic or data; assumptions will do.

That is why some folks are hopeful about the recent SCOTUS ruling that said that CA minors could NOT be prevented from buying violent video games (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2Fopinions%2F10pdf%2F08-1448.pdf&ei=wmxrTriTLeHI0AHY6Nn9BA&usg=AFQjCNFlHfMcdHM8KwTmy_ZUZq74AGgy0g), because there was no scientific concensus that playing those games was harmful to kids. If the SCOTUS adopts that reasoning in gun cases, then gun control laws cannot be held consistent with public safety unless there is "consensus" that limiting guns as per a given law (or limiting guns generally) improves public safety.

[antiquus]

This whole argument misses the roots of gun control, the rationale back in the day that gun control was started was based in class, race or anti-immigrant prejudice. Gun control in large cities starts, and continues due to fear of the power class in these cities.

Want an example of this power at work? Reagan first implimented the 7 day waiting period, Reagan backed the Brady act, Reagan as governor signed the Mulford Act in 1967, which made it practically impossible to move a gun off your property. Nixon wanted guns banned.

This continues to this day, practically speaking only the rich can afford automatic weapons, a situation that suits some in power just fine, and that was all done with laws, having nothing to do with the real world price of the weapons. Once again Reagan signing the "Firearms Owner`s Protection Act" a lie if there ever was one - on May 19 1986. Guess what day an automatic weapon has to be registered by to be transferable between ordinary citizens?

So it wasn't just Clinton and the Democrats that screwed over your second amendment rights, for some real world class screwing look to a Republican working for the "public good".

Both NYC (about 80% reduction in violent crime in the last 20 years) and Chicago (60%) are resistant to gun freedom, both being large enough to shape what happens in their state. Go ask southern Illiinois or upstate New York what they want and you will find it's overwhelmingly for a right to carry. It wasn't gun control that reduced crime in NYC or Chicago, in both places the criminals are better armed than ever - it was better and smarter policing. To continue to deny people their 2nd amendment rights in these cites isn't a crime issue - although it is portrayed as such both places - then what's the purpose? Who is it that wants this? Not the residents, despite being bombarded with media messages advertising what a great idea gun control is. If not them then who? I have my opinion.

Alabama still may issue? You have no problem getting a permit? Really? Are you African-American? The thing about second amendment rights is they are rights, held by all citizens even folks you don't want to have the right. And that's what makes the right so scary to some in power, and what makes this right so powerful.

[Dead]

1911turner,

I carried without a CCW permit when i could not legal purchase a firearm or get a permit (too young at the time), but did so due to specific threats at the time. Sad thing is it is impossible to get a permit to carry in my state (there is a "system" to get one) but it is publicly know that all permits will ne denied (unless of course you the right people $$$). Anyways being a minor at the time and with threats against me i decided to carry for protection, I figured getting caught was worth the risk. I will add that the "threat" did end up being arrested, and I never had to use that gun in self defence but the option was there if needed.

Now i do think it is insane that i can not legally carry especially since i am in a very dangerous area in the state. I also see the effects of criminala that shoot each other up, which happens very frequently here. This indicates that making it difficult to legally obtain a gun and nearly impossible to carry a gun legally has NO impact in obtaining a gun and even increases the carrying of guns by criminals as they know "victims" will be unarmed and an easy target.

[Loosedhorse]

This whole argument misses the roots of gun control, the rationale back in the day that gun control was started was based in class, race or anti-immigrant prejudice.Immaterial in court, unless you expect a court to say, "Hey, this was all began as racially motivated--so all gun laws are outta here!"

Certainly, the origins of gun control have not changed since Heller. The only mention of race in that opinion is this one:Blacks were routinely disarmed by Southern States after the Civil War. Those who opposed these injustices frequently stated that they infringed blacks’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms.As Scalia chose not to use the "origin" of gun control laws as a basis for striking down the DC law (his mention above was only used to establish that blacks' service in the militia was not at issue in Jim Crow gun laws; personal use of arms was) I don't think we will see it ever used in any 2A case.

[TCB in TN]

But even that’s not a complete fallacy - sometimes a criminal won’t carry if it’s illegal, won’t risk arrest when they don’t see a need to be armed. Anti’s argue that any reduction is better than nothing.

No its not a complete fallacy, criminals will sometimes not carry because of the risk. But it doesn't stop them from carrying when they want to commit a crime.

[azmjs]

Disagree.

Most locales that bar most CCW by specifying a "need" or "proper person" requirement also bar OC, so that they are preventing most people from carrying for self-defense. The SCOTUS has already determined in Heller that the right to self-defense is fundamental, so that states (thanks, MacDonald!) must now allow some form of carry for SD, barring clear reason that a given individual is not allowed to carry, or that carry in a "sensitive area" is not allowed.

To rule otherwise would require a fundamental reversal of Heller...which is what the antis will hope for (and likely get) if we lose a conservative Justice, or Kennedy.You may want to re-read Breyer's dissent in Heller. He used standard Brady stats on how much "gun crime" there is, and the "of course" assumption that outlawing guns = no guns = no gun crime to conclude such laws advance the "compelling government interest" of public safety.

Rulings do not require logic or data; assumptions will do.

That is why some folks are hopeful about the recent SCOTUS ruling that said that CA minors could NOT be prevented from buying violent video games (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2Fopinions%2F10pdf%2F08-1448.pdf&ei=wmxrTriTLeHI0AHY6Nn9BA&usg=AFQjCNFlHfMcdHM8KwTmy_ZUZq74AGgy0g), because there was no scientific concensus that playing those games was harmful to kids. If the SCOTUS adopts that reasoning in gun cases, then gun control laws cannot be held consistent with public safety unless there is "consensus" that limiting guns as per a given law (or limiting guns generally) improves public safety.

I think quoting the whole context of what I wrote would have addressed your objection, don't you?

"It's just as likely that the court will never hear or decide gainfully on a CCW case because there is no special virtue to concealment protected by the second amendment.

All states may be required against their "states rights" to permit 'open carry,' but nothing in the second amendment protects a right to carry a concealed weapon."

Also I think you may also have misunderstood the Brown v EMA case and the court's decision. You've sort of got it backwards, actually.

The court decided that video games were protected speech under the first Amendment and declined to consider whether or not they were "harmful to children" or any other similar consideration or consensus.

On the contrary, as you can see in the opinion, the court rather made a point of eschewing "consensus" or considerations like "public good."

Here's what I'm talking about, the holding in the ruling, from your link:

Video games qualify for First Amendment protection. Like protected books, plays, and movies, they communicate ideas through familiar literary devices and features distinctive to the medium. And “the basic principles of freedom of speech . . . do not vary” with a new and different communication medium. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wil-son, 343 U. S. 495, 503. The most basic principle—that government lacks the power to restrict expression because of its message, ideas,subject matter, or content, Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U. S. 564, 573—is subject to a few limited exceptions for historically unprotected speech, such as obscenity, incitement, and fighting words. But a legislature cannot create new categories of unprotected speech simply by weighing the value of a particular category against its social costs and then punishing it if it fails the test. See United States v. Stevens, 559 U. S. ___, ___.


ETA: I can see how later on when the court brings up the lack of evidence that violent games cause kids to be violent that it might be construed, outside its full context, as a rationale, but it is not. The opinion is complex and subtle, and that part of the holding sets up the significant part that follows, that "Since California has declined to restrict those other media, e.g., Saturday morning cartoons, its video-game regulation is wildly underinclusive, raising serious doubts about whether the State is pursuing the interest it invokes or is instead disfavoring a particular speaker or viewpoint."

I hope that clears things up!

[jon_in_wv]

posted by Loosehorse:
You may want to re-read Breyer's dissent in Heller. He used standard Brady stats on how much "gun crime" there is, and the "of course" assumption that outlawing guns = no guns = no gun crime to conclude such laws advance the "compelling government interest" of public safety.


Normally I'm impressed by the opinions of the justices on the Supreme Court but the dissenting opinion on the Heller case was the dumbest bunch of drivel I've ever read. They spent paragraphs sighting historical documents to "sound" smart then they would say it didn't really apply to the point they were making then they wouldn't provide any documentation for the point they actually WERE making. The arguments in the dissenting opinion had NO basis in history or fact but were twisted to try to fit the ideology of the gun grabbers. I laughed out loud several times reading it.

[TexasBill]

Breyer's dissent was a hoot; As I read it, I was wondering if Breyer was beginning to show signs of age-related mental difficulties.

I wish Alan Gura all the best, knowing that he'll win some and he'll lose some, but that he will always keep trying.

As far as reversals of Heller and McDonald, I am not too worried. These decisions are fairly recent and very far-reaching. Heller determined the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right and McDonald said the Second Amendment was binding on the states. This requires an opponent to argue against a now-established civil right or to argue the Fourteenth Amendment does not cover products that clearly do move in interstate commerce and citizens who travel freely from state to state. The Justices themselves are not prone to overruling themselves, especially on recent decisions, as it brings their indpendence, integrity and wisdom into question.

Unfortunately for both sides, the Second Amendment does not address how the people may keep and bear arms, it just says their right to do it shall not be infringed. However, all sorts of infringements have been tolerated by the Supreme Court, including Jim Crow laws. Some of the state constitutions clearly say the state government does have the right to regulate the carrying and use of weapons in that state.

It seems to me that a case based on the Tenth Amendment would have to be made, saying the Second Amendment recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is reserved to the people, not the states. This would mean those articles in the state constitutions contravene the federal Constitution and, as such, are null and void; the states have no authority to regulate Second Amendment rights. Good luck getting that one before the court and arguing against 50 state attorneys general and a huge body of law and prior court decisions.

[nyrifleman]

It's just as likely that the court will never hear or decide gainfully on a CCW case because there is no special virtue to concealment protected by the second amendment.


I think you're missing a very important part of this is, which is that NYS forbids a person from OWNING a handgun, unless they have a CCW. Not even locked up, unloaded and disassembled, not even if you inherited it from your grandpa, not under any circumstances. So it's not, in fact, a concealed weapons permit. It is a permit to own a handgun (and colloquially referred to as a "handgun permit", even by officials). Indeed, one of the easiest types of handgun permits to get here is a premises-only permit, which means you can't take the gun out of your home or place of business... it beats me how that makes it a CARRY permit at all.

Also, I would argue (as some people in this thread have) that not being allowed to carry concealed (even if open carry is allowed) is an unreasonable impediment to a person's ability to exercise their right to defend themselves outside their home.

[azmjs]

The simple remedy for that is to overturn the provision in new York requiring all gun owners to have a ccw, or else force new York to become shall issue.

As for the second part, you and many other people might indeed argue that, but I have the gravest doubts you'll be successful.

[bushmaster1313]

I think you're missing a very important part of this is, which is that NYS forbids a person from OWNING a handgun, unless they have a CCW.

I think you are wrong about ny law. You do not need a ccw

The real Constitutional question has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.
The question is whether a Constitutional right can be limited at the discretion of a government official.

For example:

"Miss so and so, please explain to me why you think you need an abortion."
"Mister so and so, please explain to me why you think you need a lawyer"

[azmjs]

I was giving the guy the benefit of the doubt.

On consideration I suspect his premise is as flawed as his conclusions.

[happygeek]

He's thinking of the Sullivan Act in NYC, isn't he?

[atlantis]

I find it funny that the generalization is that "liberal" people are so up-tight about freedoms related to guns.

Well, if it looks like a duck...............

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00227/RSNN0414A_227492a.jpg

[atlantis]

"Miss so and so, please explain to me why you think you need an abortion."


http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/12/23/eab98a08-a59e-45d5-b20d-662887659359.jpg

[cbrgator]

All states may be required against their "states rights" to permit 'open carry,' but nothing in the second amendment protects a right to carry a concealed weapon.

I was unaware that the Second Amendment made a distinction between open and concealed. Last time I read the sentence, it simply said "keep and bear arms."

Perhaps I am missing something. Why would the 2A only protect open carry? Did the word "bear" in 1791 only imply to "bear openly?"

I don't believe for a moment that any majority in the supreme court would rule that the second amendment protects bringing powerful and deadly weapons to meetings with the president, and therefore it is impossible that the supreme court would rule that all restrictions on the carry of arms are protected.

If some restrictions are permitted, then the door is open for restrictions on concealed carry, carry in court rooms, etc etc.
I don't think many people would argue that you could bring a gun into a meeting with the President in the oval office. The Supreme Court was very clear that the ruling did not give us the right to carry a gun anywhere, in any manner whatsoever.

Just like the SCOTUS did with the 1A and 4A, over the next few decades the Court will decide exactly what the extent of 2A protection is. After a body of cases, we now where where and when we can exercise our free speech rights, and where and when we have a right to privacy free from unreasonably search and seizure.

[azmjs]

The fact that it doesn't make a distinction is what dooms the prospects of a "right to concealed carry." Being able to carry arms openly unambiguously fulfills the right to keep and bear arms protected by the second amendment, whether or not you can conceal them is extraneous and unrelated to the second amendment.

The 2A is not a license for people to do anything they want with weapons, it is a guarantee that they can keep and bear them.

[whalerman]

Can you imagine the courage it would have taken a Cathy Seibel to rule otherwise? She would have been unwelcome at her own friends' Christmas parties. This decision was made before the case was submitted. That's the problem, these judges are the product of that government school system that a previous poster mentioned and a corrupt political system that believes they are the top of the pyramid, and not the people. It will not change until we demand change.

[HardKnox]

Bushmaster1313:
"i think you are wrong about ny law. You do not need a ccw"

unfortunatley he has it 100% correct, you can not even LOOK at a handgun in the gunstore without your carry permit.

now if you actually have $500 to spend, and 6-8 months to wait, and 4 in county character references, and time to sit infront of a judge to explain yourself for applying for a permit, and never had 1 outstanding parking ticket, congradulations to you, you just might be approved. if that does happen, then your free to go pay for your pistol and have it sit at the gunstore untill the pd have time to add it to your phisical permit, at which point you can now posess (not carry anywhere, except AT the range) a handgun in NY!!

[Loosedhorse]

I think quoting the whole context of what I wrote would have addressed your objection, don't you? Well, I did consider your "whole context," and no, it does not address my objection in the least. Perhaps you're being obtuse?

NYC (for example) not only greatly and arbitrarily restricts CCW, it similarly bars OC. I don't believe it will be possible for SCOTUS to decide about carry (as in right to keep and BEAR arms) with addressing what powers the state has (after MacDonald and Heller) to restrict a decided, fundamental, enumerated, incorporated, individual right. That would include both CC and OC.

But I could be wrong. We are both, of course, trying to predict the future.you may also have misunderstood the Brown v EMA case and the court's decision. You've sort of got it backwards, actually.

The court decided that video games were protected speech under the first Amendment and declined to consider whether or not they were "harmful to children" or any other similar consideration or consensus. In contrast, here there is no uncertainty: you are completely wrong. SCOTUS said that "protected" speech that is harmful to children (like pornography) is vulnerable to a strict strutiny restriction, and is not protected for sale to children; however, since there was no consensus that violent video games were harmful to kids, such games could therefore be considered protected speech for the purposes of such sale.Because the Act imposes a restriction on the content of protected speech, it is invalid unless California can demonstrate that it passes strict scrutiny—that is, unless it is justified by a compelling government interest and is narrowly drawn to serve that interest. R. A. V., 505 U. S., at 395. The State must specifically identify an “actual problem” in need of solving, Playboy, 529 U. S., at 822–823, and the curtailment of free speech must be actually necessary to the solution, see R. A. V., supra, at 395. That is a demanding standard. “It is rare that a regulation restrict-ing speech because of its content will ever be permissible.” Playboy, supra, at 818.

California cannot meet that standard.

Scalia goes on for about 2 pages discussing the evidence of harm to children, and judging it inadequate, indicating the Court consisdered and discussed that evidence at length and in detail. It is because the evidence was found wanting that the strict scutiny analysis of the restriction failed.

Really quite a blunder, there, on your part, az! Good thing I was here to keep you from (unintentionally, I'm sure) misleading others. :)

(Scalia's opiinion, IMHO, is really quite amusing where he successfully discredits some of the "studies" purporting harm.)

To re-iterate: this is important because it is perhaps the first time that "scientific concensus" was a required element of a strict scrutiny analysis. Up until then, a bare theory (like the unsupported theory that all gun laws increase public safety) seems to have been adequate to establish that the law in question was "actually necessary" to achieve the compelling government interest.

[parsimonious_instead]

Bushmaster1313:
>"i think you are wrong about ny law. You do not need a ccw"
>unfortunatley he has it 100% correct, you can not even LOOK at a handgun >in the gunstore without your carry permit.

now if you actually have $500 to spend, and 6-8 months to wait, and 4 in county character references, and time to sit infront of a judge to explain yourself for applying for a permit, and never had 1 outstanding parking ticket, congradulations to you, you just might be approved. if that does happen, then your free to go pay for your pistol and have it sit at the gunstore untill the pd have time to add it to your phisical permit, at which point you can now posess (not carry anywhere, except AT the range) a handgun in NY!!


"i think you are wrong about ny law. You do not need a ccw"

unfortunatley he has it 100% correct, you can not even LOOK at a handgun in the gunstore without your carry permit.

********************************************************

And you have to buy the gun first, because its make, model and serial# are part of the application. This puts the applicant in the position of having to buy a handgun and simply trust that it feels, handles and shoots in a manner that is pleasing and functional, unless an existing permit holder breaks the law and lets them try out their gun, the gun store breaks the law by allowing handling, or they go out of state.

I don't remember the application costing $500 (Westchester Cty) - probably 150 or so. Parking and moving violations aren't an issue, and even arrests aren't an issue if you submit "disposition" letters with the application. I also didn't have to justify the permit in front of a judge - I simply dropped off the paperwork and waited.

And yes, it's quite true unfortunately that you have to have your permit "amended" every time you buy an additional handgun. It's annoying to pay hundreds of dollars for something, and wait weeks to get to use it.

As I understand it, my permit allows carry to and from the range, either locked in a box or concealed about my person. If I'm caught carrying 'off hours', I've been told one of two things can happen - the cop may say, "hey, you have a valid permit don't do this again" or "I'm taking custody of your firearm and permit." and then I'd have to go in front of a "revocation hearing" which is an administrative procedure which, at worst, involves losing the permit and the handguns. No criminal sanction.

I have no idea how this upcoming case affects possession/carry in NYC. There's a decent indoor range at the southern tip of my county. Any Westchester resident that shoots there is one missed or wrong turn away from accidentally going into the Bronx, which is a problem because NYS permits are *invalid* anywhere in the city. They're now technically guilty of a misdemeanor possession charge.

I wish Mr. Gura the very best with this case - I met him two days ago and he's a very nice fellow and genuinely cares about our rights.

[cbrgator]

The fact that it doesn't make a distinction is what dooms the prospects of a "right to concealed carry." Being able to carry arms openly unambiguously fulfills the right to keep and bear arms protected by the second amendment, whether or not you can conceal them is extraneous and unrelated to the second amendment.

Explain how this is so. You did not address my question. Why would open carry be protected but concealed carry not? You are reading your own interpretation into the language of the 2A. Like I said, it says "keep and bear," not "keep and bear openly."

I don't see where the framers intended the right to pertain to only open carry. You've offered no evidence, merely an opinion.

Did the Americans who lived in the Northeast in 1791 not have the right to carry under their coats during the harsh winter months?

[JoeShmoe]

Bushmaster1313:
"i think you are wrong about ny law. You do not need a ccw"

unfortunatley he has it 100% correct, you can not even LOOK at a handgun in the gunstore without your carry permit.

now if you actually have $500 to spend, and 6-8 months to wait, and 4 in county character references, and time to sit infront of a judge to explain yourself for applying for a permit, and never had 1 outstanding parking ticket, congradulations to you, you just might be approved. if that does happen, then your free to go pay for your pistol and have it sit at the gunstore untill the pd have time to add it to your phisical permit, at which point you can now posess (not carry anywhere, except AT the range) a handgun in NY!!
The NY pistol permit process is laborious but it seems to be often exaggerated as well. It is true that each handgun has to be specifically listed on your permit, in order to take possession. The length of time it takes depends on your particular judge. I have never had to wait more than a few days to add a new handgun. It is true that NY is a "may issue" state, however most people outside of NYC seem to be able to obtain their permit, albeit with restrictions. It is true that most permits seem to be issued with target, and hunting restrictions, however many people are able to get unrestricted permits, or have the restrictions removed after a period of time. Again, it depends on your particular judge. The pistol permit costs around $100 and does not expire. I think mine took 3 or 4 months.

It is also true that NY has very few restrictions for where one can carry. Churches, bars, restaurants, are all ok, and I've never seen a business posted. It's just not on anyone's radar.

I'm not suggesting that this is how things should be, but it seems to be better here than NJ, IL, and CA, for instance.

[azmjs]

Explain how this is so. You did not address my question. Why would open carry be protected but concealed carry not? You are reading your own interpretation into the language of the 2A. Like I said, it says "keep and bear," not "keep and bear openly."

I don't see where the framers intended the right to pertain to only open carry. You've offered no evidence, merely an opinion.

Did the Americans who lived in the Northeast in 1791 not have the right to carry under their coats during the harsh winter months?

It doesn't matter whether the "framers intended the right to pertain only to open carry," the second amendment isn't a license to do anything you want with a firearm, but rather a guarantee that you not be banned from keeping and bearing arms.

If a jurisdiction permitted open carry but not concealed carry, it would not be violating the second amendment because it would not be outlawing the carry of weapons.

In order to sue on second amendment grounds, a person would have to complain that by outlawing concealed carry, the state or city or whatever was preventing him from keeping and bearing arms. The obvious rejoinder is that his complaint isn't true, because the state allows him to openly carry his weapons.

The fact that he might prefer to carry concealed doesn't necessarily carry any weight.

An example of unconstitutional vis-a-vis the 2A carry restrictions would be a state or city that outlawed both open and concealed carry.

[cbrgator]

If a jurisdiction permitted open carry but not concealed carry, it would not be violating the second amendment because it would not be outlawing the carry of weapons.

In order to sue on second amendment grounds, a person would have to complain that by outlawing concealed carry, the state or city or whatever was preventing him from keeping and bearing arms. The obvious rejoinder is that his complaint isn't true, because the state allows him to openly carry his weapons.

I fully understand. In fact, I’ve even stated that myself here, right below one of your posts:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=7521835&postcount=14

But choosing one or the other is not what you previously said. In your earlier posts, you stated that concealed carry was not protected by the 2A, only open carry.

It's just as likely that the court will never hear or decide gainfully on a CCW case because there is no special virtue to concealment protected by the second amendment.

All states may be required against their "states rights" to permit 'open carry,' but nothing in the second amendment protects a right to carry a concealed weapon.

This is not entirely accurate, because it would work in the reverse too. It would be no different to force all states to permit concealed carry, and allow them to prohibit open carry. Each method, open/concealed, is entitled to full 2A protection, just not necessarily simultaneously in the same jurisdiction.

At least, that is what the SCOTUS is likely to hold.

[blackguns]

Yes NYS is not the friendliest place to get a permit, but I also agree that once you have a permit it is arguably a very friendly place to carry. I can't think of any restrictions beyond the usual courthouses and gov buildings. State parks maybe....?

The worst thing about NYS is the completely arbitrary nature of the process, and the huge variation from county to county. MY permit was issued in 6 weeks start to finish, unrestricted (full carry) and the deputy that did the investigation couldn't have been more pro carry if he tried. (even giving shooting pointers)

Two counties over it takes at least 6 months and a full carry is almost NEVER issued.

The comment of being under the radar is very true, most people that don't carry, don't know that anyone can carry. It's a strange state.

[cbrgator]

The comment of being under the radar is very true, most people that don't carry, don't know that anyone can carry. It's a strange state.

My uncle (extremely anti) has lived in California since about 1979. He didn't know you could carry openly and unloaded in California until this past January when I informed him :)

[Nushif]

The thing about second amendment rights is they are rights, held by all citizens even folks you don't want to have the right. And that's what makes the right so scary to some in power, and what makes this right so powerful.

It's stuff like this that makes me happy on the inside.

As for on topic talk though, I don't even pretend to understand the legal goings in and out of this, but as someone earlier pointed out the basis for half of NY's law (and probably most other gun control laws) is the link between criminals carrying guns and law abiding people carrying guns. that is probably the most critical chain in this entire argument and I am frankly surprised that no smart lawyers, legislators and the like have seen this fallacy.

I don't believe every politician, legislator and sheriff who opposes the rights of the citizens to carry weapons is a bad person, encourages their wife to have an abortion instead of using birth control while hating America, apple pie and the sacred .45 cartridge ... but I am legitimately wondering where this gross oversight in logic comes from at times. You would think in any court this would be pointed out rather quick, but for some reason it is not ...

[Olevern]

I live right over the border of NY (in Pa) and can't even transport my legally owned pistol to a gunsmith in NY without risking arrest, nor can I transport my legally owned handguns to the NY range/gun club just over the border to shoot it.

[1911Tuner]

It doesn't matter whether the "framers intended the right to pertain only to open carry," the second amendment isn't a license to do anything you want with a firearm, but rather a guarantee that you not be banned from keeping and bearing arms.

Neither does it place any restrictions on the bearing of arms. It states that we have the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't specify how we may or may not carry them. To have done so would make the right more like a privilege. No? Is the phrase "Shall not be infringed" not clear enough?

The fact that he might prefer to carry concealed doesn't necessarily carry any weight.

Nor does the fact that he may prefer to carry openly...which is also prohibited in many jurisdictions...which is a de facto infringement no matter how you cut it.

I'm mildly amused at what is quite frankly an arrogant notion that seems to be prevalent among our politicians...that nobody ever dared be so uppity to carry a gun before the states decided to grant permission via Shall Issue carry permits. If "they" had a clue as to how many men and women have been going about their daily snoop and poop with a concealed pistol or revolver on their persons...for years...it'd give'em a case of the vapors. I know a couple of old guys in their 80s who have carried every day of their lives since they were very young men. They tell me that the practice was...and is...quite common among their peer group.

[HexHead]

So if the SCOTUS ruled that all states must allow open carry, would you?

[1911Tuner]

So if the SCOTUS ruled that all states must allow open carry, would you?

No. I much prefer to go about my business without drawing attention to myself...to disappear in a crowd of three. YMMV

[shep854]

I believe what makes Alabama a "may issue" state is that each county sheriff can establish local criteria for CCW issue, rather than one overriding state standard, but must honor CCW's from other counties (or reciprocal states). This is most evident in the cost for renewal. In Jefferson County, it's $7.50, whereas in neighboring Shelby Co., it's around $20. In fact, there was a minor insurrection in JeffCo when Hale tried to raise the renewal cost!:p
When I moved to Birmingham from Montgomery Co., AL back in '92, I had to go through the whole JeffCo application process, even though I had a current Montgomery Co. CCW. I just figured it was what I had to do.

[nyrifleman]

Yes NYS is not the friendliest place to get a permit, but I also agree that once you have a permit it is arguably a very friendly place to carry. I can't think of any restrictions beyond the usual courthouses and gov buildings. State parks maybe....?

Actually, not even that. You can't carry into courthouses and government buildings that you are specifically told not to carry in (usually by a man with a metal detector at the door) and yes, that will be most government buildings. But theoretically, if that is not the case, and there are no local ordinances to the contrary, you can carry in a courthouse. I know quite a few villages in my area where they don't bother with anything like that.

Another interesting thing about local ordinances: if one county prohibits carrying firearms in certain places (e.g. churches), but your permit is from a different county that does not, you don't have to obey the ordinance. You DO risk getting your permit getting taken away if you're caught (the LE in the one county will notify your issuing county of what happened, and your permit can be revoked at any time and solely at the discretion of the issuing officer), but you have not, technically, committed any crime and cannot be charged with anything.

NYS is a strange place.

And others have responded for me, but yes: you technically cannot so much as handle a handgun in a store if it isn't registered to you. You couldn't even ask a friend if you could try the trigger on their 1911 to see what it feels like. This only applies if you're over 21 (under 21, and you're good to go, strangely enough).

The rule is widely ignored in practice

[azmjs]

I fully understand. In fact, I’ve even stated that myself here, right below one of your posts:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=7521835&postcount=14

But choosing one or the other is not what you previously said. In your earlier posts, you stated that concealed carry was not protected by the 2A, only open carry.



This is not entirely accurate, because it would work in the reverse too. It would be no different to force all states to permit concealed carry, and allow them to prohibit open carry. Each method, open/concealed, is entitled to full 2A protection, just not necessarily simultaneously in the same jurisdiction.

At least, that is what the SCOTUS is likely to hold.

I don't think we really disagree.

My point is not that the 2A offers no protection or justification at all for concealed carry, just that at the end of the day, there are obvious scenarios where a person could enjoy his 2A protected rights in full, but not be able to carry concealed.

Specifically, allowing open carry but prohibiting concealed carry.

[azmjs]

Neither does it place any restrictions on the bearing of arms. It states that we have the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't specify how we may or may not carry them. To have done so would make the right more like a privilege. No? Is the phrase "Shall not be infringed" not clear enough?



Nor does the fact that he may prefer to carry openly...which is also prohibited in many jurisdictions...which is a de facto infringement no matter how you cut it.

I'm mildly amused at what is quite frankly an arrogant notion that seems to be prevalent among our politicians...that nobody ever dared be so uppity to carry a gun before the states decided to grant permission via Shall Issue carry permits. If "they" had a clue as to how many men and women have been going about their daily snoop and poop with a concealed pistol or revolver on their persons...for years...it'd give'em a case of the vapors. I know a couple of old guys in their 80s who have carried every day of their lives since they were very young men. They tell me that the practice was...and is...quite common among their peer group.

Either you can keep and bear arms or you can't. Either the right is infringed or it isn't.

If Arizona outlawed concealed carry tomorrow, my right to keep and bear arms would not be infringed, because I would be perfectly free to carry my guns openly.

[Zombie_Flesh]

Which said, gun enthusiasts owe more to Alan Gura as their champion in Heller than to almost any other person in the history of the country.

The result of his law suit was the most profound pro-gun change in the history of the country's laws.

Everything after Heller, (including even McDonald if you have even the faintest belief in states rights) is just icing on the cake, frill on the sides.


I would have to say that Dane von Breichenruchardt might deserve equal ot perhaps more credit than Gura.

[1911Tuner]

If Arizona outlawed concealed carry tomorrow, my right to keep and bear arms would not be infringed, because I would be perfectly free to carry my guns openly.

That would be a de facto infringement. Infringement defined as any encroachment on a right or privilege. Any...encroachment. Placing a restriction on how the arms may be borne is an infringement, no matter how you cut it. If they can ban the carrying of concealed arms, they can just as easily ban the carrying of open arms. Many jurisdictions have done so, and don't think that it can't happen in others...even where the law doesn't presently prohibit concealed or open carry. Stroke of a pen.

See also

Encroachment: To enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another.

Do the words "Gradual steps" and "Stealth" strike any oddly familiar chords?

2A doesn't say that we may keep and bear arms, as long as we bear them in the proscribed manner, at the state's whim. It says "Shall not be infringed." Period.

[azmjs]

That would be a de facto infringement. Infringement defined as any encroachment on a right or privilege. Any...encroachment. Placing a restriction on how the arms may be borne is an infringement, no matter how you cut it. If they can ban the carrying of concealed arms, they can just as easily ban the carrying of open arms. Many jurisdictions have done so, and don't think that it can't happen in others...even where the law doesn't presently prohibit concealed or open carry. Stroke of a pen.

See also

Encroachment: To enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another.

Do the words "Gradual steps" and "Stealth" strike any oddly familiar chords?

2A doesn't say that we may keep and bear arms, as long as we bear them in the proscribed manner, at the state's whim. It says "Shall not be infringed." Period.

I don't think your opinion here is correct, and I am nearly certain it will never be adopted by the supreme court.

[Loosedhorse]

Well, now I'm back to agreeing with az.

Look at the wording, for example, of 1A: "Congress whall pass no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." Pretty clear, right? Yet there are plenty of laws abridging the freedom of speech: there's slander penalties, espionage (revealing state secrets) penaties, warnings that must be placed on tobacco products, noise ordinances, etc., etc., etc.

The standard today is that all enumerated rights can be limited if the limitation survives "strict scrutiiny."

Supposing either Heller's interpretation (that the RKBA is fundamentally about self-defense) or Miller's interpretation (that it is fundamentally about militia service) is correct, the state could still regulate which guns may be carried and the manner of carry, and could even restrict the right if the restriction was narrowly tailored and necessary to advance a compelling state interest.

[1911Tuner]

I don't think your opinion here is correct, and I am nearly certain it will never be adopted by the supreme court.

It wasn't offered as an opinion, and I didn't write the definitions of "Infringe" and "Encroach" which are pretty clear, as is the wording of 2A.

And I don't think that the SCOTUS will ever admit that it means exactly what it says, either.

If the framers of the Constitution had only foreseen the political corruption that was to come, and had simply written:

"The right of the people...to keep and bear arms...shall not be infringed." It wouldn't have left any latitude for interpretation and we wouldn't be arguing these points.

[azmjs]

Correct, the supreme court writes the "definitions" of those words.

I don't think there's any real likelihood that they'll write them in accordance with what you think they should say.

[1911Tuner]

Correct, the supreme court writes the "definitions" of those words.

Nope. I'm pretty certain that those words were defined several centuries before the Supreme Court was a twinkle in John Adams' eye. The Supreme Court interprets words and phrases...and not always in accordance with the Framers' intents or desires.

I don't think there's any real likelihood that they'll write them in accordance with what you think they should say.

Neither do I, and it's not about what I think they should say. It's what the Founding Fathers thought they should mean...and how they were to be interpreted. They really should have been more pointed in the wording, but they couldn't see the magnitude of the future corruption.

Tell me...Do you believe that the 2nd Amendment grants us the right to keep and bear arms?

[azmjs]

if you want details of what I think the second amendment specifically protects, you can find them in the supreme court's decision in DC v Heller, as written by antonin Scalia.

Your opinions or mine about what the founders believed aren't what count. Even if they did, the founders are not immortal dictators- we are a nation of laws, not men, not even great men.

The law is that the supreme court is responsible for deciding questions about the constitution.

[1911Tuner]

if you want details of what I think the second amendment specifically protects, you can find them in the supreme court's decision in DC v Heller, as written by antonin Scalia.

So...You feel that our rights are granted and moderated by government...or rather a specific branch of the government. Think carefully.

Work with me here. I'm trying to wrap my head around your core beliefs. A straight answer to the question will do.

Do you feel that the Constitution grants us the right to keep and bear arms? How about the right to speak our minds? Or the right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure? Are all of these rights granted by the government?

All these points are relevant, because no other article in the Bill of Rights has been subject to so much regulation and restriction. If any of them are violated, there is usually hell to pay...but not the 2nd Amendment. They run roughshod over that one almost at will.

You say that if concealed carry is struck down, your right to keep and bear arms isn't being infringed...in Arizona...because you can still carry openly. Try walking down 42nd Street in NYC with a Glock on your hip and see how quickly your 2nd Amendment rights will be infringed.

Do you believe that the Constitution grants us the right to keep and bear arms? Yes? No?

[azmjs]

There's nothing in the second amendment that "grants" a right.

The point I made about az open carry was solely to illustrate the fact that in AZ, the RKBA is not contingent on being able to carry concealed. Without concealing a gun, people in AZ can keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the second amendment.

If that is not true in new York, or other places, it should certainly be rectified.

Incidentally, the second amendment's is not the only guarantee to be seriously disabused over the years, not even the most egregious.

[1911Tuner]

Good! I'll get to the point that I was trying to make.

No. The Constitution doesn't grant us the right. It recognizes
that it is a right, and guarantees it...in writing.

That's why the phrase "Endowed with certain unalienable rights" was used.

Endowed. Born with it. Unalienable. Permanent. Never to be denied.

Our rights and liberties are being eroded a nibble at a time because
a vast number of people have been led to believe, and have accepted that
those rights and liberties come from the government...and so they stand
idly by while they disappear before their eyes.

Privileges are granted...and privileges can be revoked at whim. All
it takes is a majority of one in the voting entity, and whatever right
that they feel should be null and void is gone...with the stroke of a pen.

As it stands, our concealed carry permit is a privilege. We go and beg for permission from the high sheriff...pay the tax for the privilege...and we're apparently quite satisfied that we're exercising a right. Got a news flash for ya. If the high sheriff one day decides that your privelege is to be revoked...it's gone. All it takes is a speeding ticket if that's what he wants to use.

"Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear...even though there are infringements by the dozen. We've allowed it to happen , though. I guess it's true. We really do get the government that we deserve.

Good debate! Be well.

[toivo]

Because NYS is so deeply in love with "handgun registration" they want each and every handgun tied to your "pistol permit" (by default a permit to merely own and take to the range). You buy the handgun and submit a form to the County Clerk who leaves it with a judge to have it signed off on. Your newly purchased firearm waits inside your friendly dealer's vault until it's signed and you are sent a new permit with the gun's make model and serial printed on it. I don't know how many judges there are, but there are literally only one or two that sign these things promptly, the rest are indifferent or hostile to 2A, and therefore it's quite possible to wait 4-8 weeks before you can start taking the gun to the range.

A lot depends on the county you live in. In my county, one of the judges has given a rubber stamp (literally) of his signature to the clerk in the pistol permit bureau of the sheriff's office. I walk in with a receipt for a handgun, she fills out and rubber-stamps the form, pushes a few buttons on her magic machine, and I walk out with my new handgun listed on my permit. It's possible to buy the gun, get it listed on your permit, and take possession of it all in the same day. Might not sound like a good deal to those of you in "free" states, but by NY standards it's pretty cool. :cool:

[Neverwinter]

Nope. I'm pretty certain that those words were defined several centuries before the Supreme Court was a twinkle in John Adams' eye. The Supreme Court interprets words and phrases...and not always in accordance with the Framers' intents or desires.

Neither do I, and it's not about what I think they should say. It's what the Founding Fathers thought they should mean...and how they were to be interpreted.
And yet the institution of the judicial branch is behaving exactly as they designed it. The USSC composed of living individuals is interpreting laws in the context of legal precedence from the Constitution onward. How could the Founders not have anticipated differing and changing interpretations of a text? They were certainly learned enough to know the history of disagreements of the most published book in the world.

[1911Tuner]

How could the Founders not have anticipated differing and changing interpretations of a text? They were certainly learned enough to know the history of disagreements of the most published book in the world.

Regardless...2A was second in order of importance only to the right to speak our minds because they understood the dangers of a government that gets too big and too uppity. They were also too well aware of the dangers of a standing army that obeyed an uppity government's orders without question.

They put no restrictions or modifiers into the text...other than "Shall not." They did that in the 4th Amendment with the words: "Without due process" meaning that you could be subject to search and seizure as long as there's a good reason for it.

Had they meant for 2A to be subject to restrictions, they would have made a provision for that, maybe along the lines of: "Except where prohibited by law."

Liberty disappears one nibble at a time. Applying for a license in order to exercise a right means that it's not a right at all. It's a privilege...and as noted...that can be revoked at whim.

[azmjs]

Good! I'll get to the point that I was trying to make.

No. The Constitution doesn't grant us the right. It recognizes
that it is a right, and guarantees it...in writing.

That's why the phrase "Endowed with certain unalienable rights" was used.

Endowed. Born with it. Unalienable. Permanent. Never to be denied.

Our rights and liberties are being eroded a nibble at a time because
a vast number of people have been led to believe, and have accepted that
those rights and liberties come from the government...and so they stand
idly by while they disappear before their eyes.

Privileges are granted...and privileges can be revoked at whim. All
it takes is a majority of one in the voting entity, and whatever right
that they feel should be null and void is gone...with the stroke of a pen.

As it stands, our concealed carry permit is a privilege. We go and beg for permission from the high sheriff...pay the tax for the privilege...and we're apparently quite satisfied that we're exercising a right. Got a news flash for ya. If the high sheriff one day decides that your privelege is to be revoked...it's gone. All it takes is a speeding ticket if that's what he wants to use.

"Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear...even though there are infringements by the dozen. We've allowed it to happen , though. I guess it's true. We really do get the government that we deserve.

Good debate! Be well.

I'm afraid "endowed with certain inalienable rights" is not anywhere in the constitution, and as such isn't part of our laws.

Moreover no right is inalienable, not even the right to life, or else we couldn't have a death penalty, or other punishments for crimes, or any way to maintain safety or security of anything.

Our rights have in fact been greatly expanded and propped up since the country was founded. Our rights are better protected now than at any point before. I've never met all these people who supposedly believe that our rights "come from the government" and that it's therefore OK for the government to abridge them. I suppose I might be fortunate to know so many ACLU types, who are passionately committed, and do more than any other group, to safeguard the rights of the individual against government of all levels.

In a state where open carry is unrestricted, then the RKBA does not require that concealed carry be allowed, and it is indeed a privilege.

For the record, as it stands in Arizona and a few other states, no permission or license or tax is required to conceal a weapon.

I don't think that the second amendment's "shall not be infringed" is ambiguous, though I have found many people who disagree. It is quite clear that it means that the government shall not prevent people from keeping and bearing arms.

As long as people can keep and bear arms, their right to do so is not infringed. This is the reasoning that prevailed in Heller, and it will continue to prevail, while more fanciful interpretations, be they for or against gun ownership, continue to floudner.

Thus allowing open carry precludes a RKBA right to concealed carry, et cetera.

and... a good day to you too!

[happygeek]

Moreover no right is inalienable, not even the right to life, or else we couldn't have a death penalty, or other punishments for crimes, or any way to maintain safety or security of anything.


Not a terribly good analogy to gun control as to have your right to life taken away you have to be convicted in court under due process of the law.

Where's the due process in gun control schemes? Are we putting each and every individual in the country on trial in court, convicting them, and then denying them gun ownership and/or carry?

[hermannr]

I would agree "IF" we had the unrestricted right to OC everywhere (no permit necessary), then a permit would be OK to CC. Unfortunately, in NY (and DC, Chicago...etc) they do not have any right to OC, and a very restricted right to CC. Argument could be made for unequal treatment under the law.

Here in WA, we have only slight restrictions to OC, and have shall issue CC, not perfect, but way better than NY.

[azmjs]

Not a terribly good analogy to gun control as to have your right to life taken away you have to be convicted in court under due process of the law.

Where's the due process in gun control schemes? Are we putting each and every individual in the country on trial in court, convicting them, and then denying them gun ownership and/or carry?

Denying people gun ownership was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in DC v Heller.

As far as carrying a gun outside the home, the court has not yet answered as to whether that is protected by the second amendment.

The death penalty was not offered as an analogy for gun control, but rather as an illustration of the fact that the rights protected by the constitution are not in fact inalienable or absolute. The second amendment is not a guarantee of the ability to do whatever you want with any weapon you choose, just as the first amendment does not protect anything you might possibly wish to say or write.

[Loosedhorse]

As far as carrying a gun outside the home, the court has not yet answered as to whether that is protected by the second amendment. Only because that question has not come before the Court, yet. The reasoning used in Heller (that the RKBA is fundamental, and tied to the fundamental right of SD) allows us to anticipate that carry also may not be prohibitted. However, other dicta suggests that carry can be banned within certain "sensitive places", but not generally throughout a state.

What those sensitive places are will have to be decided, but confirmation of the right to carry just awaits arrival of the right case--assuming no repacement of a pro-gun Justice (or Kennedy) with a anit-gun one.

It is sad that, even after Heller, our rights depend on one Justice. But there it is.

[azmjs]

Only because that question has not come before the Court, yet. The reasoning used in Heller (that the RKBA is fundamental, and tied to the fundamental right of SD) allows us to anticipate that carry also may not be prohibitted. HOwever, other dicta suggests that carry can be banned within certain "sensitive places", but not generally throughout a state.

What those sensitive places are will have to be decided, but confirmation of the right to carry just awaits arrival or the right case--assuming no repacement of a pro-gun Justice (or Kennedy) with a anit-gun one.

It is sad the, even after Heller our rights depend on one Justice. But there it is.

I think that's how it will end up too.

As far as the one justice thing, one useful way of looking at it is to remember what got us here. Too many decades of pro-gun people hitching their wagon to the wrong horse, so to speak. There's a long history of the liberty-crusader ACLU types being opposed by the pro gun types. The only way to protect gun rights in the long term is to win over the support of liberals. Liberal jurists should learn not to hold the RKBA to a double standard against the personal liberties protected by the other amendments that they defend so vigorously.

[happygeek]

Denying people gun ownership was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in DC v Heller.

As far as carrying a gun outside the home, the court has not yet answered as to whether that is protected by the second amendment.

The death penalty was not offered as an analogy for gun control, but rather as an illustration of the fact that the rights protected by the constitution are not in fact inalienable or absolute. The second amendment is not a guarantee of the ability to do whatever you want with any weapon you choose, just as the first amendment does not protect anything you might possibly wish to say or write.


I'm not sure I follow, where's the due process in the Sullivan Act for example?

[1911Tuner]

As far as carrying a gun outside the home, the court has not yet answered as to whether that is protected by the second amendment.

And again, 2A placed no restrictions on where we may bear arms. Since it isn't specifically prohibited or modified...we rightly assume that it's protected. No interpretation is warranted.

A restriction or modifier on how, when, and where we bear arms is an infringement. It's a lot like the statement made by the 2nd Amendment "supporter" Bill O'Reilly when he said that he believed in the right...to keep a *rifle* for self defense...only in the home, and repeated with emphasis "Only in the home."

Which part of "Shall...not...be...infringed" is so hard to grasp?

A gift that has a string attached isn't a gift at all.

If the SCOTUS can rule that we may only bear arms in the home, it can also at some point in the future rule that we can't take the gun out of a specific room in the home. Look at Heller, and the restrictions that were enacted by DC in retaliation. In the home. Not in an attached garage. Not on the front porch. Not on the back porch...and the justices didn't offer a whisper in opposition.

Feelin' infringed on yet?


Now comes the "IMO" part.

After considering that the founders understood the dangers of a standing army, I don't believe that they wanted one. They knew that a provision for the common defense would be needed, which is why they made provisions for a militia...but not a professional army.

And...Because a government that grows too big for its britches could cause just as much mischief with a regulated militia as with a standing army...they put the 2nd Amendment in place. Not so that we could be called up...but specifically because the government could call it up and turn it on the populace.

I also believe that the founders never intended for us to be outgunned by the militia or...God forbid...a professional army...so I believe that we should have legal access to anything the military has, up to and including Abrams tanks and Tomahawks and F18s if we can afford'em.

For the record, I know that ain't gonna happen, either.

[azmjs]

I'm not sure I follow, where's the due process in the Sullivan Act for example?

If the sullivan act deprives people of their second amendment rights without due process, than it deserves to be reviewed by the courts, and no doubt eventually will be.

Heller was just a few short years ago, it takes a long time for big changes in the country's legal framework to work there way completely through the legal system.

For better or worse (better, in fact), one of the prices paid for living in a free country with civil society is obeying the law as long as it is the law.

[1911Tuner]

The Sullivan Law is an example of an unlawful ruling, and should have been immediately challenged.

In truth, there really can't be a fully unrestricted right to keep and bear arms, and there are certain groups of people who shouldn't be legally able to do so. (We could say the same for cars and driver's licenses...but I digress.) Repeat violent offenders is one such group.

I say "repeat" because most of us have been violent at one time or another in our lives...and if we'd been prosecuted, we wouldn't be able to trot down to the local firearms and fish bait emporium and buy a shootin' iron 30 or 40 years later.

Due to my reckless misspent youth, and my willingness to go a few fast rounds in the parkin' lot at the proverbial hat-drop in those days...I'm in that category. I just got lucky. (Yes. I've grown, and I'm all better now.)

Those amongst us who are certifiable stark-ravin' looney tunes should likewise be infringed...but also in reality...how would that be enforced without becoming a totaltarian police state? Even with that, it would be a virtual impossibility. If a tweaker or crackhead can leave his house at 0900 in search of his daily fix and get hooked up before noon...anybody who wants a gun can pretty much do likewise.

In the final analysis, it comes down to something that my grandfather once said to a sheriff's deputy during a dispute with a neighbor.

"Sonny...the only authority that you have over me is what I let you have. Now get the hell offa my property."

[cbrgator]

In truth, there really can't be a fully unrestricted right to keep and bear arms,

You are admitting a fact that you've been arguing against throughout this thread. We all know the 2A says "shall not be infringed." It is not an absolute protection, same way the 1A language, "Congress shall pass no law," is not absolute.

None of our rights are absolute, they can't be in a civil and organized society. It's just a fact of life. Instead, fundamental rights are generally subject to strict scrutiny (optimistically awaiting this for the 2A). Our fundamental rights CAN be abridged, infringed, etc. if the infringement is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest.

You can argue anything you want about the definitions of words but that is simply the way things are. I want as few limits on the 2A as is realistically possible, and even you now admit that at LEAST some are necessary/acceptable.

[1911Tuner]

You are admitting a fact that you've been arguing against throughout this thread.

Think so? I'm really not. I'm only noting that there are certain realities that go along with the right to keep and bear arms. While the people that I described were born with the right, their criminal actions or their lack of the legal ability to make intelligent, responsible decisions and care for themselves are exempted...much like 5 year-old children.

A man of sound mind, and without violent tendencies or predisposed to sociopathic behavior? He should have the unrestricted right, as provided for and guaranteed by the Constitution. One criminal conviction or one violent episode in his past shouldn't change that. Nor should a lesser felony conviction once he's paid his debt and proves that he can stay on the straight and narrow for three years.

After all...we wouldn't hand a 16 year-old boy with a fresh license 200 bucks and the keys to a Corvette and tell him to be home before daylight...would we?

Nor would we hire a known pedophile to teach 4th grade, even if he has the degree and is licensed by the state to teach.

But all of this is moot, because if a violent felon or a whackjob decides that he wants a gun at noon, he can usually have one before the sun goes down...and that is the single reason that the rest of us should have the unrestricted right to keep and bear arms. We might meet that guy one dark night at the edge of a parking lot.

[cbrgator]

While the people that I described were born with the right, their criminal actions or their lack of the legal ability to make intelligent, responsible decisions and care for themselves are exempted...much like 5 year-old children.

Where in the 2A are violent felons exempted from its protection? If a felon's rights can be stripped, then they aren't absolute.

Where does the 2A say that only people with the "legal ability to make intelligent, responsible decisions and care for themselves" enjoy 2A protections? You are now putting a restriction on a right you say is absolute.

Don't you realize that by saying the 2A is ABSOLUTE, that violent felons AND 5 year old's have full 2A protection? As do infants, the mentally deranged and mentally incapacitated, etc.

It simply is not possible to have absolute rights in a civil, organized society. If rights were absolute, I could stand on the sidewalk outside your home at 3AM, wave a gun around in the air, and scream into a megaphone that I will kill you if you step outside. And I could so because I have the absolute right to bear my arms however I choose, and say whatever I want, wherever and whenever. Should I have the right to do that? Do you believe that restricting that behavior infringes on your constitutionally protected freedom?

[azmjs]

And again, 2A placed no restrictions on where we may bear arms. Since it isn't specifically prohibited or modified...we rightly assume that it's protected. No interpretation is warranted.

A restriction or modifier on how, when, and where we bear arms is an infringement. It's a lot like the statement made by the 2nd Amendment "supporter" Bill O'Reilly when he said that he believed in the right...to keep a *rifle* for self defense...only in the home, and repeated with emphasis "Only in the home."

Which part of "Shall...not...be...infringed" is so hard to grasp?

A gift that has a string attached isn't a gift at all.

If the SCOTUS can rule that we may only bear arms in the home, it can also at some point in the future rule that we can't take the gun out of a specific room in the home. Look at Heller, and the restrictions that were enacted by DC in retaliation. In the home. Not in an attached garage. Not on the front porch. Not on the back porch...and the justices didn't offer a whisper in opposition.

Feelin' infringed on yet?


Now comes the "IMO" part.

After considering that the founders understood the dangers of a standing army, I don't believe that they wanted one. They knew that a provision for the common defense would be needed, which is why they made provisions for a militia...but not a professional army.

And...Because a government that grows too big for its britches could cause just as much mischief with a regulated militia as with a standing army...they put the 2nd Amendment in place. Not so that we could be called up...but specifically because the government could call it up and turn it on the populace.

I also believe that the founders never intended for us to be outgunned by the militia or...God forbid...a professional army...so I believe that we should have legal access to anything the military has, up to and including Abrams tanks and Tomahawks and F18s if we can afford'em.

For the record, I know that ain't gonna happen, either.

Neither does the 2A preclude all such restrictions. The second amendment does not protect your ability to carry a gun into the oval office, or into a court room, or a school, or many other places.

This doesn't speak to whether it protects concealed carry per se at any rate. Because even if the 2A is found to protect carrying a gun, it is entirely possible to carry a gun openly while not being able to carry it concealed. Thus the protection for carrying a gun would be fulfilled.

A restriction or modifier is not an infringement unless it prevents you from keeping and bearing arms.

The supreme court might very well rule that we cannot take guns out of the home, or out of a certain room in the home. In order to uphold the constitution, we would have to abide by that ruling, as unlikely as it might be.

Obviously, it is not the justices role to offer a "whisper of opposition" to anything except cases put before them. When the time comes for those restrictions to be considered, then it will be the proper forum for them to speak and act.

[husbandofaromanian]

It's because the 2nd is such a strong statement that I am worried. The 2nd is saying we can pretty much any arm (morters, bazookas, grenades) and bear them at will. It scares me that this will cause a Constitutional Convention and a new ammendment will water down the 2nd.

[1911Tuner]

As is my habit...sometimes maddening...I usually play devil's advocate in these discussions...presenting both sides of the argument.

There are many things that minors and violent felons are exempted from, including the right to vote and the right to autonomy. This doesn't do away with their right to keep and bear arms. It just makes it a prosecutable action if they're caught with one. Is it an infringement? Yes. Is it a reasonable infringement? Yes.

Again...would you hand a .357 Magnum to a 12 year-old and tell him to go have fun? Well...you might...but being the responsible adult, you could wind up in hot water if you do. I remember a time when a 12 year-old could walk into the woods with a .22 rifle, and nobody really thought much of it. A cop or sheriff's deputy might stop and ask him where he was going, and when the boy replied "Squirrel huntin!" The officer would usually remind him to be careful and go his way. That's not the case any more.

Also in times past, if a man convicted of a felony was subsequently caught with a gun, he would be relieved of it...and no charges were brought for the possession of the gun unless he was in the act of committing a crime. He could often go before a judge or even the sheriff and get his gun back...unless the felony included armed robbery, murder, or attempted murder.

Things have changed. Some for the better and some for the worse. It turns out that there must be some form of restriction, be it on guns possession or automobiles or certain drugs....even though it does nothing to prevent anything before the fact...but because that too is a form of checks and balances that the country has at its root.

We also have the God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Says so right there in the Constitution, but if our pursuit of happiness includes pedophilia or setting fires just to see the pretty light...that will be infringed upon like right now.

As to that...is it not an infringement on a felon's pursuit of happiness when we lock him up in prison for his crimes? Or when we fine the speeder for driving 90 mph on the highway...would an accepted excuse be that it made him happy to drive that fast? No. The right to pursuit of happiness assumes that those pursuits are reasonable, and don't trample the rights of others or endanger the general public. We have the right to free expression...unless we yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

So, no. I'm not rabidly for unfettered access to firearms...but I feel that about 99% of the infringements are unlawful and unreasonable. I feel strongly that if a man is legally entitled to possess a gun, that he shouldn't be restricted as to how he may bear it, and there should be no distinction made between concealed and openly displayed. If he hasn't exempted himself by his own actions, he has the Constitutionally protected right to carry it in any way that he sees fit.

[Manco]

Things have changed. Some for the better and some for the worse. It turns out that there must be some form of restriction, be it on guns possession or automobiles or certain drugs....even though it does nothing to prevent anything before the fact...but because that too is a form of checks and balances that the country has at its root.

Checks and balances? :scrutiny: I think it's more like the government performing some CYA that simultaneously allows people to "feel safe" even though they aren't and never were. "Feeling safe" is good for tax revenue...not that the government actually needs revenue as long as they can print and borrow money....

We also have the God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Says so right there in the Constitution,

If you mean the literal quote, then it was actually stated in the Declaration of Independence, which is not the law of the land, although obviously it still is an important document in regard to American political philosophy.

The Constitution, if I remember correctly, doesn't actually say those words, although it protects those rights. The more common triumvirate of "life, liberty, [and/or] property" is mentioned in the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the right to pursue happiness is implied throughout--most generally in the 9th Amendment, and for us most specifically in the 2nd Amendment. :D

but if our pursuit of happiness includes pedophilia or setting fires just to see the pretty light...that will be infringed upon like right now.

That's because such actions infringe upon the rights of others. There is no such thing as perfect freedom--we have to give up some freedoms in order to retain our rights. Rights are all about being able to keep things and not have others take them away against our will. These "things" include life, property, and the freedom to do anything that does not infringe on the same rights of others--together, this is known as liberty (for which some people substitute "freedom" as a synonym).

The problem is that sometimes government decides to take away freedoms or, even worse, rights for no other reason than to increase its own power--this is known as tyranny. According to the Founding Fathers of the United States, all governments are inherently tyrannical and must be kept in check by the people (one of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment), which starts by making sure that the people know their own rights (very few do nowadays, but it's there in writing for them if they want to learn).

As to that...is it not an infringement on a felon's pursuit of happiness when we lock him up in prison for his crimes? Or when we fine the speeder for driving 90 mph on the highway...would an accepted excuse be that it made him happy to drive that fast? No. The right to pursuit of happiness assumes that those pursuits are reasonable, and don't trample the rights of others or endanger the general public. We have the right to free expression...unless we yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

Sometimes there are clear lines to be drawn, and other times there are not. But either way, it always boils down to achieving the greater good, which is not always obvious, and is always vulnerable to misunderstanding and deception, both of which are most frequently based on fear. The one constant is that we should never give up our freedoms or rights easily--there must be compelling, rational reasons for doing so. And where there are compromises, we should always beware of insidiously losing our rights entirely over time, bit by bit.

So, no. I'm not rabidly for unfettered access to firearms...but I feel that about 99% of the infringements are unlawful and unreasonable.

In the case of firearms, most infringements are unlawful because of the 2nd Amendment (now incorporated to be binding on the states), and unreasonable because they're not based on rational arguments.

I feel strongly that if a man is legally entitled to possess a gun, that he shouldn't be restricted as to how he may bear it, and there should be no distinction made between concealed and openly displayed.

This is where rationality comes in yet again. In general any person could be carrying a concealed gun (or any other weapon, for that matter) at any time, whether it is legal to do so or not. Those who would use it unlawfully would carry it illegally, so laws against concealed carry have no deterrent effect whatsoever (without metal detectors, legal searches, or other means of enforcement applied), and only serve to disarm law-abiding citizens. Since anybody could be armed at any time anyway, it stands to reason that it makes no difference whether the weapon is openly displayed.

If the mere sight of a weapon causes fear and panic, then that should be taken into consideration, but it is most assuredly irrational behavior. Just as irrational is the notion that to "feel safe" is to be safe. Should our laws and decisions to infringe on our natural rights (namely to self-defense) be based on irrational thinking and fear, in effect trading self-reliance and a measure of real security for a false sense of security, which is a form of danger in itself? No rational person would want this, at least for the reasons I've given.

[azmjs]

It's because the 2nd is such a strong statement that I am worried. The 2nd is saying we can pretty much any arm (morters, bazookas, grenades) and bear them at will. It scares me that this will cause a Constitutional Convention and a new ammendment will water down the 2nd.

Put your fears to bed. The second amendment does not say we can pretty much have any arm and bear them at will.

What it says is that the government cannot outlaw the keeping and bearing of arms. Not the keeping and bearing of any arms, just of arms in general.

So, we are free to outlaw morters, bazookas, grenades, atomic weapons, poison gas, etc etc, as long as we allow things like rifles and pistols.

Because then, when someone sues that he cannot keep and bear arms because he can't buy sarin gas artillery, the courts can dismiss him on the basis of the fact that he can buy pistols, rifles and shotguns, and thus if he wishes to, bear arms to his heart's content.

[azmjs]

We also have the God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Says so right there in the Constitution, but if our pursuit of happiness includes pedophilia or setting fires just to see the pretty light...that will be infringed upon like right now.

As to that...is it not an infringement on a felon's pursuit of happiness when we lock him up in prison for his crimes? Or when we fine the speeder for driving 90 mph on the highway...would an accepted excuse be that it made him happy to drive that fast? No. The right to pursuit of happiness assumes that those pursuits are reasonable, and don't trample the rights of others or endanger the general public. We have the right to free expression...unless we yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

So, no. I'm not rabidly for unfettered access to firearms...but I feel that about 99% of the infringements are unlawful and unreasonable. I feel strongly that if a man is legally entitled to possess a gun, that he shouldn't be restricted as to how he may bear it, and there should be no distinction made between concealed and openly displayed. If he hasn't exempted himself by his own actions, he has the Constitutionally protected right to carry it in any way that he sees fit.
__________________

In fact, no such thing is written in the constitution. I think you may, to some extent, be confusing the Constitution, which is the legal foundation of our country, with the Declaration of Independence, which is not.

You have every right to feel that way, but it is very unlikely that your opinion about what is and is not an unconstitutional infringement on the second amendment will be borne out with time and subsequent decisions by the court.

An ample number of detailed explanations as to why have been posted so far, and if they can't be overcome here, it's unlikely that they'll be overcome when they're brought up in the supreme court.

[Sol]

Whaaat? Only movie stars, radio personalities and politicians should be allowed to carry
(sarcasm)

[Neverwinter]

Put your fears to bed. The second amendment does not say we can pretty much have any arm and bear them at will.

What it says is that the government cannot outlaw the keeping and bearing of arms. Not the keeping and bearing of any arms, just of arms in general.

So, we are free to outlaw morters, bazookas, grenades, atomic weapons, poison gas, etc etc, as long as we allow things like rifles and pistols.

Because then, when someone sues that he cannot keep and bear arms because he can't buy sarin gas artillery, the courts can dismiss him on the basis of the fact that he can buy pistols, rifles and shotguns, and thus if he wishes to, bear arms to his heart's content.
This is roughly what is meant when Justice Jackson dissented in Terminiello v. Chicago when he said "The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

If we were to assume that the 2nd amendment is written to allow all arms to be borne in an unrestricted fashion, and the framers intended it as such, that does not provide sufficient reason to allow us to do so in spite of other practical considerations. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

[azmjs]

Indeed, but fortunately we have no need to assume that the second amendment forces us into a suicide pact of chemical and biological weapons on every block, because it doesn't to begin with.

Unfortunately for gun hobbyists, this limits the scope of the collection one can put together.

[husbandofaromanian]

Put your fears to bed. The second amendment does not say we can pretty much have any arm and bear them at will.

What it says is that the government cannot outlaw the keeping and bearing of arms. Not the keeping and bearing of any arms, just of arms in general.

So, we are free to outlaw morters, bazookas, grenades, atomic weapons, poison gas, etc etc, as long as we allow things like rifles and pistols.

Because then, when someone sues that he cannot keep and bear arms because he can't buy sarin gas artillery, the courts can dismiss him on the basis of the fact that he can buy pistols, rifles and shotguns, and thus if he wishes to, bear arms to his heart's content.


So, we are also free to outlaw centerfire rifles & pistols. Then the courts can say he can still bear rimfire arms to his heart's content.

[azmjs]

So, we are also free to outlaw centerfire rifles & pistols. Then the courts can say he can still bear rimfire arms to his heart's content.

Conceivably yes, unless we can argue for the necessity of center-fire rifles and pistols. You needn't worry, in reality.

Make no mistake, the courts can do anything they want in interpreting the constitution to answer questions brought to them.

The check that balances this great power is the process of amending the constitution.

[shep854]

"The check that balances this great power is the process of amending the constitution."--azmjs

Another, possibly more important check is the right to vote for Senators, who confirm judges and Justices. It's our responsibility to both vote wisely and to hold them accountable.

[azmjs]

I meant as a recourse to an unpopular supreme court decision.

The only way to 'appeal' a scotus decision is to change the constitution.

[shep854]

Ah. I understand :)

[danez71]

The second amendment does not say we can pretty much have any arm and bear them at will.

What it says is that the government cannot outlaw the keeping and bearing of arms. Not the keeping and bearing of any arms, just of arms in general.

Actually, with all due respect, you are just about 100% wrong on this.... although its worded nicely.

2A uses the word "infringe"; not "cannot outlaw". There is a HUGE difference. Your side of the arguement is based on the 2A not using the word "infringe" and instead, inserting your own word(s) to support your side of the arguement.

If its going to be discussed as to what the 2A says and means.... it would be prudent to actually use the words that are in the 2A instead of re-writing or misquoting it.

Also, by the 2A not excluding anything in the statement, by default, it includes everything. There has been ample documention that some private citizens had state of the art weapons of their time... the same cutting edge weapons the military had.

It doesnt need to say "all arms" as "arms" already is inclusive by default. Just as "people" is inclusive of all people; not just of a certain race or wealth.



In fact, no such thing is written in the constitution. I think you may, to some extent, be confusing the Constitution, which is the legal foundation of our country, with the Declaration of Independence, which is not.

(this was in reference to "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness")


While technically true, it seems like you're trivializing the Declaration of Independence(DoI). The DoI was the 1st step to the Constitution.

Just to set the correct tone of accuracy....

The DoI says this:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, . . .

The preamble to the Constitution (which is widely accepted to be part of the Constitution) says this:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


So while the quote the poster used is in the DoI as you correctly pointed out.... the same sentiment statement IS in the the Constitution.

[cbrgator]

Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Preamble carry legal wait.

The rights mentioned in the DoI are not enforceable like those mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

Similarly, the source of Congress' authority is derived from the corpus of the Constitution, not the Preamble. Congress cannot legislate simply to "insure domestic Tranquility" or "secure the Blessings of Liberty." They are restricted to the authority granted to them in the body of the document and its amendments, such as the commerce clause or taxing and spending clause.

Before anyone brings it up, Congress' abuse of its authority under these clauses is an issue for another day on another forum. Let's leave that out.

[danez71]

Similarly, the source of Congress' authority is derived from the corpus of the Constitution, not the Preamble. Congress cannot legislate simply to "insure domestic Tranquility" or "secure the Blessings of Liberty."

I didnt say otherwise.

The preamble, as the Supreme Court has said, is evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution.

The preamble, is based off of part of the DoI and sets the tone as to what the Constitution is trying to accomplish/insure.



Congress cannot legislate simply to "insure domestic Tranquility" or "secure the Blessings of Liberty


What?!?!? I'.m not sure what you mean

Lets read the preamble again because your statement seems to fly in the face of what our forefathers wrote.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[cbrgator]

You either misunderstood my statement or misunderstand the Constitution.

Congress is a body of enumerated powers, meaning it can only do what the Constitution allows it to, and nothing more. These powers are not found in the Preamble. Congressional authority is derived from Article 1. The Preamble simply explains why they have that authority (amongst other things).

When Congress passes a law, such a law must be permitted by one of the powers listed in Art. 1 Sec. 8. It must point to something like the commerce clause, or taxing and spending clause as the authority to pass a given law. It cannot say, "we passed this law to secure the blessings liberty."

That list in the Preamble is a list of goals, not powers.

[azmjs]

Actually, with all due respect, you are just about 100% wrong on this.... although its worded nicely.

2A uses the word "infringe"; not "cannot outlaw". There is a HUGE difference. Your side of the arguement is based on the 2A not using the word "infringe" and instead, inserting your own word(s) to support your side of the arguement.

If its going to be discussed as to what the 2A says and means.... it would be prudent to actually use the words that are in the 2A instead of re-writing or misquoting it.

Also, by the 2A not excluding anything in the statement, by default, it includes everything. There has been ample documention that some private citizens had state of the art weapons of their time... the same cutting edge weapons the military had.

It doesnt need to say "all arms" as "arms" already is inclusive by default. Just as "people" is inclusive of all people; not just of a certain race or wealth.





It's nice that you think that, I suppose. You certainly aren't the only one on here to make that mistake. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the supreme court to adopt your opinions about the second amendment.

[happygeek]

Well they did uphold slavery for almost a hundred years, and organized racism for another hundred years beyond that, and they upheld the case where a guy was thrown in jail for protesting the draft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v_united_states), just to name a few examples off the top of my head.

The courts aren't always right. They do recruit their members from the human race. They have biases just like everyone else. At least they got the last two cases concerning the 2nd Amendment at least half right.

I'm still trying to understand your position on the 2nd. It seems as though you're saying the equivalent of 'as long as you're allowed to pass out paper pamphlets, your freedom of the press hasn't been abridged, even if you're not allowed to write a blog'. After all, the 1st Amendment doesn't specify pamphlets, newspapers, and of course the writers didn't envision the Internet.

[azmjs]

If the purported "benchmark" of supreme court "correctness" is the thoughts of the founders of the country, then how could upholding slavery be 'wrong?'

The supreme court cannot be "wrong" because "right" is defined as whatever the court decides.

Speech and expression, as protected by the first amendment, are different animals from keeping and bearing arms. Plus the amendments are worded differently, and the fundamental basic rights protected in them aren't good analogues for eachother.

The first amendment protects our right to speak and express ourselves publicly, and to broadcast and distribute that. The second amendment protects our right to be armed, rather than unarmed.

This is the way the court set it out it in Heller.

[happygeek]

Ok, so according to you the SCOTUS is always right, even in cases like Schenck or Dred Scott v. Sandford.

Assuming there was a law restricting your right to blog, or participate in forums like this one, would you consider that be a violation of the 1st Amendment?

[danez71]

You either misunderstood my statement or misunderstand the Constitution.


Ahhh... I miss understood your statement.



It's nice that you think that, I suppose. You certainly aren't the only one on here to make that mistake.

Well I think that because thats what it says. Quite a few linguistics agree. Its been battled in courts before.

Just as linquistics have also determined that "people" is inclusive of "all people", "arms" would be inclusive of "all arms".

"Outlaw" has NEVER been determined to be an acceptable substitute for "infringe"per the courts.


Where is my mistake? I'm certainly not mistaken that you have removed the word "infringe" and substitutued "outlaw"; thats your mistake, not mine.


The supreme court cannot be "wrong" because "right" is defined as whatever the court decides.

Ahh... so you arent really debating anything to do with the 2A as based off of that statement, you believe that the 2A means what ever the current set justices think about the 2A.

I actuallly agree with that statement... but it doesnt make it right. It just makes it a legal misinturpretation.

Those have been overturned before and will again.

[azmjs]

Well I think that because thats what it says. Quite a few linguistics agree. Its been battled in courts before.

Just as linquistics have also determined that "people" is inclusive of "all people", "arms" would be inclusive of "all arms".

"Outlaw" has NEVER been determined to be an acceptable substitute for "infringe"per the courts.


Where is my mistake? I'm certainly not mistaken that you have removed the word "infringe" and substitutued "outlaw"; thats your mistake, not mine.



"Actually, with all due respect, you are just about 100% wrong on this....

Also, by the 2A not excluding anything in the statement, by default, it includes everything.

It doesnt need to say "all arms" as "arms" already is inclusive by default. Just as "people" is inclusive of all people; not just of a certain race or wealth."



The second amendment does not "by default," whatever that's supposed to mean, "include everything."

It's really far too involved to go into the differences between the way "people" and "arms" are used in their respective amendments and articles in the constitution. Suffice to to say that the two are not good analogues. The comparison borders on the preposterous.

Either a person has the right to keep and bear arms, or else that right is 'broken' and he does not. That's about as specific as we can get with the wording of it, don't you think?

For whatever it's worth, I am myself a "linguistic" ;)

[azmjs]

Ok, so according to you the SCOTUS is always right, even in cases like Schenck or Dred Scott v. Sandford.

Assuming there was a law restricting your right to blog, or participate in forums like this one, would you consider that be a violation of the 1st Amendment?

A more accurate reading of what I wrote would be that "The supreme court cannot be "wrong" because "right" is defined as whatever the court decides." I think.

Depending on the circumstances I probably would. Freedom of speech and expression is a very wide thing. Unfortunately for gun hobbyists, the right to keep and bear arms is not a good analogy.

[happygeek]

Do you think people have the right to protest government actions, for example protesting the draft back when there was one?

[azmjs]

In most cases of course.

However, there are undoubtedly instances where the constitution does not protect them.

[happygeek]

Well, you and the SCOTUS are in agreement there. In addition to Schenk, they also ruled against two guys who threw pamphlets out a window, except those two got a much longer sentence.

Just wanted to clear up that you agreed with that.

[azmjs]

There is of course a difference between what the constitution does and doesn't protect, and what you or I might think it ought or ought not to protect.

If one of us gets on the supreme court, it will then be up to us to decide.

Until then, its up to us to learn about the decisions that bind us, the thinking behind them, and their implications.

[happygeek]

Do you think the Supreme Court was wrong to throw those guys in prison?

[azmjs]

It's not at all clear what you're talking about.

Supreme court cases have names, i wonder if you could be a little more specific.

I think it's wrong that the Phoenix Cardinals didn't win the super bowl. But, they didn't.

[happygeek]

I already mentioned the name back in post # 117: Schenk v United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States). I did neglect to mention the other two guy's case, it was Abhrams v United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrams_v._United_States).

I'll go ahead and cut to the chase since the mods are probably about to close this down anyway; I'd say the SCOTUS is often wrong. Heck, the SCOTUS has later ruled that the SCOTUS was wrong. In 1927 they modified their position from Schenk v United States, and then modified it again in 1969. What changed in those years? It wasn't the wording of the 1st Amendment.

If your whole point is that the SCOTUS is always legally right and your whole position on the 2nd is based off of blind faith on their rulings, well then I do kinda get your position and where you're coming from.

[danez71]

The second amendment does not "by default," whatever that's supposed to mean, "include everything."


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/default



For whatever it's worth, I am myself a "linguistic"

:confused: default or by default? :scrutiny:

Skipping that...

Then you, of all people, should know better than to substitute "outlaw" for "infringe" as you have done a couple of pages back.

Can you explain your reasoning for doing that?


.......The comparison borders on the preposterous.


And yet you, the linguistic, subtitute words in the Constitution to support your side of the arguement. Thats preposterous.

[azmjs]

The question is, what is it that constitutes the right to keep and bear armed being infringed.

From the latin "to break," if you didn't know.

I'm interested in hearing where you learned the legal theory of X meaning Y "by default."

[azmjs]

I already mentioned the name back in post # 117: Schenk v United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States). I did neglect to mention the other two guy's case, it was Abhrams v United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrams_v._United_States).

I'll go ahead and cut to the chase since the mods are probably about to close this down anyway; I'd say the SCOTUS is often wrong. Heck, the SCOTUS has later ruled that the SCOTUS was wrong. In 1927 they modified their position from Schenk v United States, and then modified it again in 1969. What changed in those years? It wasn't the wording of the 1st Amendment.

If your whole point is that the SCOTUS is always legally right and your whole position on then 2nd is based off of blind faith on their rulings, well then I do kinda get your position and where you're coming from.

What the courts do is find better tests for whether a given thing violates the constitution or is protected by it.

My personal opinion is very much in line with the way the court decided Heller. If it had been me deciding it, it's more or less what I would have written.

Like it or not (I do, others don't) it's now the correct and proper standard for evaluating claims about the second amendment and gun laws.

[happygeek]

What dictionary are you getting that from?

The one I looked 'infringe' up in had "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another". For 'infringement' it had "the act of infringing; an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege".

[azmjs]

I happen to know the etymology, but you can find it in the merriam webster website's entry I am sure, or the OED.

[happygeek]

Merriam Webster is the online dictionary that had "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another".

At any rate, it's now clear where you stand on the 2nd, and the 1st for that matter, and where exactly you're getting that position from. That's the only reason I was asking you questions about infamous SCOTUS decisions of the past to begin with.

[azmjs]

To tie this all back to the topic at hand, consider a hypothetical jurisidction that permitted open carry of firearms but not concealed carry. Lets assume that the "bear" in right to keep and bear arms protects carrying a gun on your person.

Would this jurisdiction be violating the right to bear arms of the people who live there?

Of course not, because the people who live there are perfectly free to bear arms. The jurisdiction does not prevent them from bearing arms, from carrying them any lawful place they choose.

Now if another jurisdiction did not permit people to carry guns at all, or imposed high hurdles for them to do so, then that jurisdiction would be infringing the right to bear arms. It could remedy this infringement by permitting carry, either open, concealed, or both.

ETA If merriam webster's website doesn't give etymology then it isn't a very good dictionary. I would be surprised to find out that this is the case.

[happygeek]

Is that even what these 'may issue' laws are being challenged on? I'd think they'd be challenged under the whole equal protection under the law thing. For example, in NYC two guys apply for a carry permit, both guys have no criminal or mental history, both satisfy all the requirements; except that one guy gave more in campaign donations, or he's the mayor's buddy, or he has connections, or the Chief of Police just doesn't like the one guy, so one guy gets a permit and the other doesn't.

[azmjs]

As it's phrased in the OP, new york requires that someone demonstrate a "special need for self-protection."

As long as every case is evaluated on its merits, that wouldn't really raise equal protection issues.

If there is political corruption afoot, then that's an issue that needs to be investigated by law enforcement.

[cbrgator]

Is that even what these 'may issue' laws are being challenged on? I'd think they'd be challenged under the whole equal protection under the law thing. For example, in NYC two guys apply for a carry permit, both guys have no criminal or mental history, both satisfy all the requirements; except that one guy gave more in campaign donations, or he's the mayor's buddy, or he has connections, or the Chief of Police just doesn't like the one guy, so one guy gets a permit and the other doesn't.

I am staying out of the argument you guys are having, but to answer your question happygeek, no it is not being challenged on equal protection. That is a 14th Amendment issue. Alan Gura is suing on the basis that "may-issue" laws violate the 2nd Amendment.

[danez71]

I'm interested in hearing where you learned the legal theory of X meaning Y "by default."

The way the laws have been upheld for a century or 2... or more. It doesnt grant us gun rights.... those are inalienable. It places limits on the govt. etc etc. Its the ways law have been written since way back when.

Infringe doesnt mean outlaw. As noted below, you can see the the supreme court acknowledges it but has decided that a little infringment is ok.

(note that the latin difinition doesnt list "break" as noted by azmjs however, on other sites "break" is listed along with whats listed below. Point is the latin route of the word infringe isnt the lone word of 'break'.... in case you didnt know (wink - can we stop being condescending at least?... "if you didnt know"... sheesh. Please dont talk down if that what you were doing.)

http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html
infringe vb [Latin infringere] 1: violate, transgress 2: encroach, trespass Source: NMW

In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon.

When you enlightened me/us on the latin route of infringe, you didnt include any of the following. "1: violate, transgress 2: encroach, trespass Source: NMW".

Im still curious how/why you substituted the words.

And why is that you only selected the one word (break) of the latin route of infringe that happens to support your side but didnt include the majority of the latin route which doesnt support your side?

[azmjs]

The way the laws have been upheld for a century or 2... or more. It doesnt grant us gun rights.... those are inalienable. It places limits on the govt. etc etc. Its the ways law have been written since way back when.

Infringe doesnt mean outlaw. As noted below, you can see the the supreme court acknowledges it but has decided that a little infringment is ok.

(note that the latin difinition doesnt list "break" as noted by azmjs however, on other sites "break" is listed along with whats listed below. Point is the latin route of the word infringe isnt the lone word of 'break'.... in case you didnt know (wink - can we stop being condescending at least?... "if you didnt know"... sheesh. Please dont talk down if that what you were doing.)



When you enlightened me/us on the latin route of infringe, you didnt include any of the following. "1: violate, transgress 2: encroach, trespass Source: NMW".

Im still curious how/why you substituted the words.

And why is that you only selected the one word (break) of the latin route of infringe that happens to support your side but didnt include the majority of the latin route which doesnt support your side?

You could substitute almost any synonym for "infringe" and still come to the same conclusion, because what violates, encroaches, trangresses, etc, the right to bear arms is the outlawing of bearing arms.

The right to keep and bear arms is not the right to have any arms of any kind and do anything you want with them, it is the right to be armed and use weapons.

As long as a person is armed and can use his weapons, his right to do so isn't violated, trangressed, encroached, etc.

[danez71]

You could substitute almost any synonym for "infringe" and still come to the same conclusion.............


Hmmmm... I guess theres the fundamental issue that seems we'll have to agree to disagree.

1) Synonyms dont automatically have the same exact definition.

2) The word "outlaw" that you substituted for "infringe".
a) Has been used in various terms since before the 12th century
b) Has been in use for a few hundred years before the US Constitution
c) Has been in use for a few hundred years before the word "infringe" came to be.

3) I dont believe in re-writting the Constitution using words that have similar, but different, meanings.


4) I believe that our forefathers chose their words purposefully.

5) I dont believe they chose the synonym of words they really wanted to use.

This will be the 3rd time Ive asked these two basic questions of you.

Im still curious how/why you substituted the words.

And why is that you only selected the one word (break) of the latin route of infringe that happens to support your side but didnt include the majority of the latin route which doesnt support your side?

[azmjs]

If "infringe" isn't defined by it's synonyms, then what do you purport it to mean?

And I should probably point out that in actual fact, I never "substituted" the word infringe with the word outlaw or with any other word.

It's unclear to me why you insist on claiming that I did.

[danez71]

If "infringe" isn't defined by it's synonyms, then what do you purport it to mean?


Each of those two words have their own definition.

I'm sure you know the difference between a definition and a synonym.


And I should probably point out that in actual fact, I never "substituted" the word infringe with the word outlaw or with any other word.

It's unclear to me why you insist on claiming that I did.

Well, you paraphrased (as I noted earlier) using the word and your last few posts have been defending the use of the word as a substitute.

As well as you said
You could substitute almost any synonym for "infringe" and still come to the same conclusion.............

Therefore, it seems that you recognize that you did substitute.

How about a 4th time asking?

Im still curious how/why you substituted the words.

And why is that you only selected the one word (break) of the latin route of infringe that happens to support your side but didnt include the majority of the latin route which doesnt support your side?



These are simple questions.I might be able to better understand your position if you explained.

But you seem either unwilling or unable.

[azmjs]

I'm not going to join you in derailing the thread into trivial slop of deliberately misapprehended straw-men.

[exavid]

I'm not sure guns don't commit crimes. Just last night my .45 came home about 0400 and wouldn't tell me with it had been up to. I thought it was being awfully evasive.

[dudester]

If NY goes shall-issue, I will weep tears of joy.
You and me both.