Alan Gura Begins Attack on "May-Issue" Carry Laws

[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"

default or by default?

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.