Who’s Packing?

In the “Magisterial Prerogative” post I talked about the enemy of the rule of law is an arbitrary fashion in law enforcement. No where is this more prevalent than in the issuing of concealed weapons carry permits. Each county has it’s own set of hoops applicants must jump through, some logical, but most designed solely to make the process so onerous as to discourage applying. Here in California that is about to change;

California must allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms in public, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday, striking down the core of the state’s permit system for handguns.

In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said San Diego County violates the Constitution’s Second Amendment by requiring residents to show “good cause” – and not merely the desire to protect themselves – to obtain a concealed-weapons permit.

State law requires applicants to demonstrate good cause, as well as good moral character, to carry concealed handguns, while leaving the permit process up to each city and county. The ruling, if it stands, would require local governments to issue permits to anyone of good moral character who wants to carry a concealed gun for self-protection.

“The right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense,” Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain said in the majority opinion.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the most overturned (code for “these clowns could not magistrate their way out of a cardboard box”) appeals court, like ever, I am surprised.

I think the fact that someone values his life (and that of his family) and wants to protect them, that is “good cause” enough as far as I’m concerned. I am equally troubled by the other hurdle of “good moral character”, what the hell does that even mean? It can’t have anything to do with a past criminal record, other laws address that, no it’s like what is “family values”? it is at it’s root arbitrary. If a guy has a suspended driver’s license, is unemployed, shacking up with the mother of his kids but not married, visits the nudie bar from time to time, likes to tie one on once and a while, does not recycle, lets the weeds in front of his house grow out of control, what is the criteria for this?

In the same ruling, the justices said restrictions on carrying concealed weapons were “presumptively lawful,” meaning that they would be upheld unless shown to be unreasonably burdensome.

Yes, and one of those that come immediately to mind is the requirement to take and pass a gun safety class, does anyone think this is “unreasonable burdensome”? In order to obtain a driver’s license one has to learn how to drive, seems reasonable, same with walking around with a loaded firearm. I have never taken a gun safety course, seemed rather silly for me, but I would hope that all classes involve a rudimentary understanding of the law as it applies to when/under what circumstances you are justified in using deadly force, and some examples of idiots that got this wrong and are now behind bars because of it.

I know the typical lefty argument is that we will not be safer if everyone walking around is packing, if that were true they might be right, but a large segment of society wants nothing to do with guns and would not get a permit or carry under any circumstances anyway. But for those that do, the Second Amendment guarantees their right to do so. If they abuse or misuse that right, it is on them to know what they are doing.

Comments are closed.

  1. Xetrov

    Yes, and one of those that come immediately to mind is the requirement to take and pass a gun safety class, does anyone think this is “unreasonable burdensome”? In order to obtain a driver’s license one has to learn how to drive, seems reasonable, same with walking around with a loaded firearm.

    For me, it depends on how the law is written. Some states/cities are “Shall” issue, while others (I would imagine most if not all of California, Illinois, New York, etc.) are “May” issue states/cities. There is a very significant difference between the two. Many liberal states with “May” issue laws leave it up to the local sheriff or town/city council, or mayor, or whoever, and they will withhold a permit because of a bad haircut, or whatever they deem worthy of withholding the permit for. The Constitution states “Shall not be infringed”. Not “shall not be infringed unless the local cop doesn’t like your attitude.” Nebulous laws that prevent people from expressing their constitutionally protected right to keep and bare arms should be removed from the books across the board. This ruling is a step in that direction, but I fully expect California to come back with other laws, trying to skirt the Constitution.

    Thumb up 6

  2. hist_ed

    “Each county has it’s own set of hoops applicants must jump through” assume you mean in California. In Washington local law enforcement has no discretion in issuing carry permits. If you pass the background check you get the permit. We also have no training requirements.

    The comparison to driving is not quite apt. Driving is a privilege, not a right,

    Thumb up 5

  3. Seattle Outcast

    Who’s “gun safety class?” the one designed by the government that nobody can pass, the one from the guy at the range who makes it about common sense, or my Dad’s that started at age two? How about my military gun orientation and shooting classes? How much are you charging for the “gun safety class”, and how frequently will it be held? Where will you hold it? Who selects the instructors? What process will be in place for evaluating instructors and removing them for bias? Will the instructor record the participant’s guns serial numbers and collect fired ammo and brass for a police database? Will the class also cover marksmanship? If so, what is the passing score?

    I can think of all sorts of problems about a gun safety class, including the fact that the overwhelming vast majority of people don’t need one. Guns are easy to operate, intentionally so, about the only “safety” involved is not pointing them at things you don’t intend to shoot and assuming that all guns are loaded.

    People should just fucking skip the whole “concealed” angle and strap a pistol on their hip for the world to see.

    Thumb up 7

  4. AlexInCT

    Meanwhile, in Connecticut:

    Malloy and other corrupt democrats fucks can all kiss our asses. Fuck these fascist scum and their gun grabbing attempts.

    Thumb up 1

  5. richtaylor365 *

    Driving is a privilege, not a right,

    Obviously, but that was not where the comparison lies. Both acts (carrying a concealed firearm and driving a car) requires a certain amount of expertise and know how, both can do great harm to anybody else in the area, and with both the law attaches great restrictions and penalties for their misuse.

    Who’s “gun safety class?” the one designed by the government that nobody can pass

    Who’s say’s nobody can pass ? Did you take a gun safety class yourself and did not pass? Gun safety classes are about as ubiquitous as traffic school classes. Heck, the NRA themselves sponsor classes in all 50 states, you really think they are going to make these classes so difficult that your average schmoo can’t pass them? Not a very good way to champion your cause.

    Thumb up 0

  6. Seattle Outcast

    Rich,

    This a government we’re talking about – one that has decided that it will obstruct your right to keep and bear arms (no qualifications listed) by going to stupid lengths.

    The “safety class” could easily cost $15,000 (cash only), take 10 days, be held once annually (over the Xmas and New Year holiday season), maximum of 10 applicants, require you to drive to the far north end of the state where you will bivouac in a tent, require a 100% on a closed-book exam lasting 4 hours for 250 questions ranging from state law to spring strength on a Colt .45, finish up on the shooting range were you must qualify as an expert with 4 weapons not of your choice on the first attempt for each of them.

    They’d rather go to court again than issue a concealed weapons permit. And they’ll make every attempt to do find out just how difficult they can make it and get away with it.

    Or how about this, I’ll give you your right to free speech, but only after to pass my literacy test.

    Thumb up 5

  7. AlexInCT

    Heck, the NRA themselves sponsor classes in all 50 states, you really think they are going to make these classes so difficult that your average schmoo can’t pass them?

    Well, they will try. But as that has failed, like their voter poll tests did back in the days of segregation, the left will resort to other means. They will make it expensive and they will restrict who can teach. Those two things alone will deprive many of the people they feel shouldn’t own fire arms the ability to do it. Then they will enforce the law willy-nilly, to make sure the others that they don’t like have a harder time of it.

    In a nation where the law is enforced at the will of the political class and there are so many laws that make each of us criminals at least 3 times a day, they will find a way to deprive those they don’t want to have something of it. Even their freedoms and their constitutional rights. And the last 5 years should prove my point without the shadow of any doubt.

    Thumb up 2

  8. richtaylor365 *

    Gee whiz, instead of wildly speculating about what could happen, go check for yourselves. A 2 minute Google search revealed that gun safety classes usually cost between $75 and $150 for a 5 to 8 hour class, which included gun range time. Going to the NRA website, plugging in my zip code, there are 9 NRA run classes this month alone, all within 25 miles of my house, 8 hour class costing $150. I just called my local gun range, the guy said they offer classes every month, $80 for an all day class.

    None of these hurdles seem that onerous to me.

    Thumb up 0

  9. Seattle Outcast

    Let’s accept that somehow the NRA or any other existing safety class is accepted as valid by the State of California. You are still making me jump through hoops in order to exercise one my rights.

    You still want to pass my literacy test in order to exercise your right to free speech?

    How about you don’t have a right to a speedy trial unless you pass the bar exam? I mean, so many thousands (millions?) of lawyers have taken the bar and passed, what’s the problem?

    How about we can quarter troops in your house if you haven’t served in the military?

    Freedom of religion? You have to be an ordained priest first.

    Fuck it – we’ll just charge you a “tax” for using your rights. We’ll set it low so you won’t be too pissed off – how does $10K/year sound?

    Making a prerequisite to accessing one of your rights opens the door to doing so for ALL of them. That’s the thing about your rights – they are yours automatically without having to play footsie with corrupt governments. And ALL governments are corrupt, that’s why our rights are explicitly written down, along with supposed strict limits to what the government can and cannot do.

    Thumb up 3

  10. richtaylor365 *

    Part of the ruling handed down by the Ninth Circuit said this;

    In the same ruling, the justices said restrictions on carrying concealed weapons were “presumptively lawful,” meaning that they would be upheld unless shown to be unreasonably burdensome.

    So while praising the court for allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons, I also thought this part reasonable, that some restrictions or conditions (like passing a gun safety class) made sense to me, you disagree, fine.

    You still want to pass my literacy test in order to exercise your right to free speech?

    No, because that is just dopey and not even remotely similar to what I posted. Your big mouth can’t hurt me, but you walking around with a loaded firearm without a single clue about how to use it, how to aim it, how to clean it, and under what circumstances the law says you can use it, can hurt me, so your analogy fails.

    Making a prerequisite to accessing one of your rights opens the door to doing so for ALL of them.

    Sorry, but they already exist, or are you ignorant of all those Free Speech exceptions? Yeah, it’s great to go all Rambo with this ,”give me liberty or give me death”, stuff, but the courts have wrangled with this Constitutional Rights stuff for over 200 years and have decided that under certain circumstances some restrictions are reasonable, that is just the way it is.

    This notion that the government wants to take all your freedoms away from you is just paranoid nonsense. The Ninth Circuit Court is part of that government, yet, they just affirmed that here in California the right to carry concealed should not be infringed, are they out to take your rights away from you as well? I happen to think they made the right call here.

    Thumb up 0

  11. richtaylor365 *

    And just out of curiosity, where in the Constitution does it say that you have a right to carry a handgun concealed anyway? The “right to bare arms” does not specifically mention hand guns, nor does it it even address the manner in which these guns are “bared”, but the Ninth Circuit just ruled that the condition of factoring in “good cause” violates the spirit of the Second Amendment. See, that’s how it works here, when a law’s meaning, application, or constitutionality is questioned, they get to interpret or define that law.

    It is the same with all those “rights” you mentioned in your above comments. The 4th Amendment guards against unreasonable search and seizures, and for 200 years the courts have decided or interpreted just what constitutes an unreasonable search by limited and restricting how searches are conducted.

    Thumb up 1

  12. Seattle Outcast

    blockquote>No, because that is just dopey and not even remotely similar to what I posted. Your big mouth can’t hurt me, but you walking around with a loaded firearm without a single clue about how to use it, how to aim it, how to clean it, and under what circumstances the law says you can use it, can hurt me, so your analogy fails.

    None of those things are part of a gun safety course, or even a hunting safety course. By your logic I should need a mechanic’s license to own or drive a car. You might want to consider that without the 2nd amendment, none of your other rights exist, as a disarmed populace is literally at the mercy of the government and subject to it’s whims. Typically the next thing that happens is free speech is suppressed. As for a big mouth, the pen is, supposedly, mightier than the sword. Governments have toppled and massive wars fought over the exercise of free speech. Aren’t you a teacher? You should know this stuff already. Or did you just skip world history because it was boring?

    Should I know all the laws involving slander and libel before being allowed to practice my right to free speech? How about proper grammar? Will I need to pass an English class before I can blog? Should reporters be licensed? How about “comedians” that do political commentary? Should they have to pass a government sniff test before they start talking to voters via cable tv? You know, those lying idiots can influence elections and help get incompetents into office – you most likely won’t have enough clout to buy their vote compared to some random PAC that hates your political guts.

    You might want to consider that your “safety class” is nothing more than your fear of guns talking. You should talk to a therapist about your hoplophobia and how best to deal with it.

    Thumb up 2

  13. richtaylor365 *

    None of those things are part of a gun safety course

    Of course they are, what do you think they talk about? Again, you could easily answer your own questions if you looked into it yourself. After passing one of these courses you know how your firearm operates, you know how to load it, aim it, and clean it.

    By your logic I should need a mechanic’s license to own or drive a car

    No, but you should know how to turn it on, steer it, control the speed and know how to brake. By your logic anybody that can sit in the driver seat should be able to operate it legally, all that other stuff about safety and about operation, who cares, not important, right?

    You might want to consider that without the 2nd amendment, none of your other rights exist, as a disarmed populace is literally at the mercy of the government and subject to it’s whims.

    OK, I considered it, but it does nothing to address this issue. Nobody here is trashing the Second Amendment, all I’m doing to pointing out the obvious to you (which you don’t want to consider)namely, that all our freedoms have some limitations to them to some degree or another. The level of which and what they are, certainly, we can debate that, but if you starting from a premise that they are what they are, than all that case law whereby the courts tried to put a face on them and articulate what they are, that was all wasted.

    Aren’t you a teacher? You should know this stuff already. Or did you just skip world history because it was boring?

    Nope, never been a teacher, and thanks for the civics lesson about free speech, but I think I got a pretty good grasp of the concept.

    You might want to consider that your “safety class” is nothing more than your fear of guns talking.

    Again, considered it, then filed it in the “nonsense” folder. Fear has absolutely nothing to do with it, I just think it is reasonable that if someone is going to walk around with a tool capable of killing folks around him, he should know how to operate that tool, just like if he is going to drive a car, I want him to know how to operate that car, otherwise he is endangering my life on the road.

    You should talk to a therapist about your hoplophobia and how best to deal with it.

    Very classy, let it be here recorded that your right as of today to accuse anybody else of reading comprehension fail is hereby rescinded in perpetuity. I would remind you of all those posts I wrote championing the 2nd Amendment but since you thought I was a teacher, you would not remember them anyway. Gee, and to think for all those years working with handguns I had an aversion to them, just dopey.

    Thumb up 2

  14. richtaylor365 *

    Another aspect of this issue we totally neglected. Prior to this ruling San Diego County had decided that concealed weapon carry permits would only be issued if the applicant could demonstrate a “pressing need” to have one. The court found this unreasonable, that a person need only show a desire to defend himself to get a permit. This was a win for gun rights advocacy.

    But what still remains in place is the requirement to APPLY for a permit. The laws have not changed wrt the crime of carrying a concealed weapon, still a felony. So if you want that right, you still have to go begging to the government and asking them nicely. They can’t turn you down, that is a good thing, but they can still make you jump through a few hoops, such as the requirement to register your gun. Also, is there a waiting period for getting your permit? I honestly don’t know the answer to that. And what about the fee? You know damn well the county is going to charge you something for the privilege of carrying a concealed firearm, what is to stop them from making the fee so prohibitive that only fat cats can afford it?

    This was a nice win, but the fight is not over.

    Thumb up 1

  15. Seattle Outcast

    Of course they are, what do you think they talk about?

    Mostly about how stupid it is to point your gun at things you don’t intend to shoot, assuming the gun is loaded, how far a round goes, an listing of really stupid things to do with guns (shooting into the air) and lots of pictures of how ugly bullet wounds are. I’ve been through gun safety classes – since cleaning, maintenance, field stripping, etc, aren’t actually “safety” they expect you to actually take the time to learn about your gun on your own.

    By your logic anybody that can sit in the driver seat should be able to operate it legally, all that over stuff about safety and about operation, who cares, not important, right?

    If you want to drive on public property, get a license. Small difference between “right” and “privilege”…

    that all our freedoms have some limitations to them to some degree or another.

    True, you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded movie theater, which doesn’t negate the fact that placing a prior restriction on a right is an open doorway to enact more restrictions to the point that the right doesn’t exist. Take New York and Chicago for example – they are fighting this every inch of the way, and fuck the constitution.

    I just think it is reasonable that if someone is going to walk around with a tool capable of killing folks around him, he should know how to operate that tool

    So your opinion trumps another persons rights? Nice to know.

    It’s not that I disagree with the basic premise, owning dangerous items comes with responsibilities to use them properly, and while someone unwilling to learn how to use and care for a weapon has no business actually possessing it, you have no business telling them that they are not allowed to have access to self defense items without your brand of prerequisite training is even a bigger pile of bullshit.

    As for the rest of your post – blah, blah, blah, whine, whine, whimper, waaahhhhh, he said something mean about me!

    Do you project the same “safety training” for people owning knives and swords, pepper spray, baseball bats, martial arts weapons, or just really knowing how to beat the shit out of someone? I ask because you are far more likely to be killed with “hands and feet”, knives, and various blunt objects than you are with a gun.

    Also, your last post was pretty much a reinforcement of my position at the expense of yours. You are taking both sides of an argument, and sincere in each position. Pick one side and stick with it.

    Thumb up 0

  16. richtaylor365 *

    Mostly about how stupid it is to point your gun at things you don’t intend to shoot, assuming the gun is loaded, how far a round goes, an listing of really stupid things to do with guns (shooting into the air) and lots of pictures of how ugly bullet wounds are. I’ve been through gun safety classes – since cleaning, maintenance, field stripping, etc, aren’t actually “safety” they expect you to actually take the time to learn about your gun on your own.

    You haven’t a clue what you are talking about, do you? It’s like you just make shit up to listen to yourself talk. In an earlier comment I mentioned that I went on the NRA website to look into classes. I mentioned in the post that I have never attended a handgun safety class so I called the first guy on the list;
    http://www.nrainstructors.org/searchcourse.aspx

    He told me what they do in the class, and yes, field stripping, cleaning and maintenance were all part of the class, but I’m sure you know better than the actual instructor.

    Do you project the same “safety training” for people owning knives and swords, pepper spray, baseball bats, martial arts weapons, or just really knowing how to beat the shit out of someone? I ask because you are far more likely to be killed with “hands and feet”, knives, and various blunt objects than you are with a gun.

    Yes, you have regaled us in the past about how bad ass you are, but this whole paragraph is pure Reductio ad absurdum, and going to it only confirms that you are losing the argument. Tell me, has the 2nd Amendment ever been referenced to when discussing all those other weapons? Did the District of Columbia v. Heller case mention any of those other weapons? Do you need a concealed weapon permit to carry any of those other weapons? Keep digging.

    Also, your last post was pretty much a reinforcement of my position

    Which was my position before it was your position;

    I think the fact that someone values his life (and that of his family) and wants to protect them, that is “good cause” enough as far as I’m concerned. I am equally troubled by the other hurdle of “good moral character”,

    Thumb up 0

  17. AlexInCT

    Gee whiz, instead of wildly speculating about what could happen, go check for yourselves. A 2 minute Google search revealed that gun safety classes usually cost between $75 and $150 for a 5 to 8 hour class, which included gun range time.

    That’s for now. What’s to prevent them from passing a law requiring 1000 hours and costing $5K, huh RIch? This sort of ludicrous shit has been done before, and every time by the left. Look at what they did with Yucca mountain, where we were supposed to store nuclear waste. They passed a law demanding that the site have a radiation output lower than that of the background radiation of the granite mountain, making it impossible to build it and costing us tax payers billions, not to mention endangering our lives, just because a bunch of fucking watermelons saw a stupid movie in the late 70s and believed the nonsense in it.

    Thumb up 1

  18. richtaylor365 *

    That’s for now. What’s to prevent them from passing a law requiring 1000 hours and costing $5K, huh RIch?

    Seriously, do you think any court in the land would uphold such an onerous and unreasonable condition as that? Do you think the people would stand idly by and allow such a thing?

    The consensus for all those that commented on this post is that what the Ninth Circuit stated was a good thing. The only bone of contention that I can see is this part;

    In the same ruling, the justices said restrictions on carrying concealed weapons were “presumptively lawful,” meaning that they would be upheld unless shown to be unreasonably burdensome.

    Restrictions do exist, no way around that, what the court said was that they were willing to look at and review each restriction as they came up. They threw out the two previous hurdles, the necessity to show “a pressing need” and the need to demonstrate “good moral character”. Now a person need only show a desire to defend himself .

    One of the other restrictions that I brought up was that applicants complete a basic gun safety class. I think this is reasonable, falls under the “presumptively lawful” statute and believe it will be upheld because it is not “unreasonable burdensome”. Now if someone wants to challenge this restriction in court on the grounds that it is unreasonable (just like they did with the other two restrictions) they are welcome to it. And if the court finds that it is unreasonably burdensome, they can throw it out. At point they will be siding with SO, and allow any blithering idiot who does not know which end of the gun the bullet comes out of, who has never fired a gun before or knows the first thing about how to safely operate a gun, and who knows nothing about the laws relating to carrying that gun, they will then allow these people to carry concealed.

    But here is a question for you, given the law as it stands right now, that in order to carry a handgun concealed you must obtain a permit from your local municipality, assuming they are complying with this ruling, that anyone demonstrating a desire to defend himself, anyone will be granted a permit and there will be either no cost for obtaining the permit or one not prohibitive, don’t you think it is reasonable that as a condition of that permit you pass a very basic gun safety class, one that is reasonable in price that you can complete in one day?

    Thumb up 1

  19. Xetrov

    And just out of curiosity, where in the Constitution does it say that you have a right to carry a handgun concealed anyway?

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.

    A law preventing citizens from conceal carrying a handgun is an encroachment upon their right to bear arms, and thus unconstitutional.

    The Bill of Rights does not grant citizens the rights that are listed, it simply recognizes that they are rights above and beyond the power of any Government. Read the Constitution – particularly the enumerated powers listed that the Federal government does have. What passage anywhere infers a right to regulate firearms at all? So we can make the argument that State laws can be made to control guns, per the tenth Amendment. But that disregards the ending phrase of the second Amendment. No law can infringe upon my right to bear arms, because that right is not granted to me by any Government. Any law written that encroaches upon my ability to carry a gun is unconstitutional.

    Here is how I look at concealed carry –

    1) As a law abiding citizen, it is None of the Government’s business if I own a gun, or want to carry a gun, concealed or not. I should not have to register, or pass any sort of test, and thus be put on any sort of registry, or list anywhere showing I own a gun, let alone a concealed carry permit.

    Reasons for 1 should be self explanatory, but just in case it is not –

    Nazi Germany
    Stalin’s Russia
    Communist China
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/newspaper-publishes-gun-owners-names-and-addresses/

    2) If you are stupid enough to carry a gun without proper training, you’re an idiot. If you hurt someone because you’re an idiot with said gun, you should have to answer for it in court.

    This notion that the government wants to take all your freedoms away from you is just paranoid nonsense.

    There are most certainly people in power currently who want to take this specific freedom away from us. There is nothing paranoid about it. Whether it is bills placing onerous taxes on guns and/or ammunition, EPA banning of lead bullets or shutting down lead smelters, or flat out gun ownership bans such as the one overturned in DC, or gun sales bans such as the one overturned in Chicago, the evidence is clear as glass that many in our current government do not want us to exercise our second amendment right.

    Thumb up 2

  20. richtaylor365 *

    Xetrov, I know what the 2nd Amendment says, but where in there does it mention handguns or the right to carry concealed?

    I get that YOUR interpretation of that Amendment included this right but the courts have said different. The most recent SCOTUS case was District of Columbia v Heller;

    http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/beararms.htm

    And although the DC ban on handguns was overturned, they caveated their decision with this;

    The Court concluded that the D.C. gun ban could not stand. At the same time, the Court recognized that the government can regulate gun rights. The Court said its decision should not be interpreted to question the right of government to: prohibit felons and the mentally ill from owning weapons, prohibit guns in schools or public buildings, ban certain categories of guns not commonly used for self-defense, and to establish certain other conditions on gun ownership.

    Did you get that? The 2nd Amendment does NOT mean that any firearm can be carried in any manner without any restrictions. I know that is what you and others here would like it to mean, no conditions/no restrictions, but that is not the law. They even mentioned that , ” bands on especially dangerous or unusual weapons would most likely also be upheld.”

    1) As a law abiding citizen, it is None of the Government’s business if I own a gun, or want to carry a gun, concealed or not. I should not have to register, or pass any sort of test, and thus be put on any sort of registry, or list anywhere showing I own a gun, let alone a concealed carry permit.

    Great, I acknowledge that is how you feel, but as it currently stands now, the law says differently. You are certainly free to say ,”Well, I disagree with the law”, and if so moved, work to get the laws changed, that is how our system works. But what you want and what is currently reality (and lawful) is two separate things.

    Thumb up 0

  21. Xetrov

    Xetrov, I know what the 2nd Amendment says, but where in there does it mention handguns or the right to carry concealed?

    Kinda like arguing that the first amendment doesn’t say anything about the internet, so the press can be restricted on their websites, and Congress can establish a religion on their website. Can you provide a different definition for “Shall not be infringed” other than…”Shall not be infringed”?

    I get that YOUR interpretation

    George Washington addressing the second session of the first US Congress –

    Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens’ firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that’s good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour.

    Tench Coxe –

    Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

    Thomas Jefferson –

    No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms

    Albert Galatin –

    The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals…. It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.

    Thomas Jefferson –

    On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

    And although the DC ban on handguns was overturned, they caveated their decision with this.

    Did you get that?

    You’re posting someone’s opinion of the ruling, instead of text of the ruling itself? Yeah, I got that. Which doesn’t refute any of the points I made.

    The 2nd Amendment does NOT mean that any firearm can be carried in any manner without any restrictions. I know that is what you and others here would like it to mean, no conditions/no restrictions, but that is not the law.

    Really? I’m so glad you can read my mind. You asked where the Constitution specifically talks about concealed carry. I gave you the reasoning for it using the actual text, not someone else’s interpretation of it. I hope that outside of an all-out ban on bearing arms that the SCOTUS leaves it up to the States to determine their own laws on them, per the 10th amendment.

    Great, I acknowledge that is how you feel, but as it currently stands now, the law says differently. You are certainly free to say ,”Well, I disagree with the law”, and if so moved, work to get the laws changed, that is how our system works. But what you want and what is currently reality (and lawful) is two separate things.

    Actually, you’re wrong. I live in Arizona, where it is legal to conceal carry without a permit (commonly called “Constitution Carry”, and has been since 2010. Since then, crime has actually dropped in the state significantly faster than the national average.

    Thumb up 2

  22. richtaylor365 *

    Can you provide a different definition for “Shall not be infringed” other than…”Shall not be infringed”?

    I don’t need to, the courts have decided that for us.

    George Washington addressing the second session of the first US Congress -

    Where in there does Washington mention any and all “pistols” ever made and that you can carry them concealed? And all those other quotes, they go to the broader parameters of “bearing arms”, nothing else.

    You’re posting someone’s opinion of the ruling, instead of text of the ruling itself? Yeah, I got that. Which doesn’t refute any of the points I made.

    It refutes ALL the points you made. See, that’s how it works here in the US, that is how the framers intended it to work, you don’t get to decide what you read into the law, nobody deputized you chief Constitutional interpreter, your opinion is nothing more than that, opinion. But the courts decide, they interpret meaning, application, and constitutionality. SCOTUS has ruled on this issue, and they have found that you are wrong in how you read the 2nd Amendment, nothing else I can tell you.

    Really? I’m so glad you can read my mind.

    based on this;

    1) As a law abiding citizen, it is None of the Government’s business if I own a gun, or want to carry a gun, concealed or not. I should not have to register, or pass any sort of test, and thus be put on any sort of registry, or list anywhere showing I own a gun, let alone a concealed carry permit.

    It wasn’t that hard.

    I get that you and others here want unfettered access to any and all weapons to carry or possess anyway you want with zero restrictions ever, super, but legally you can’t get what you want.

    I live in Arizona, where it is legal to conceal carry without a permit (commonly called “Constitution Carry”, and has been since 2010.

    And if someday all 50 states adopt this “Constitution Carry” policy I would be just fine with that. My argument that the courts decide this stuff is not any tacit agreement that they are right here or right all the time, only that we are a nation of laws and must live by them.

    Thumb up 0

  23. Xetrov

    It refutes ALL the points you made.

    No, it doesn’t. Before this turns into “I know you are, but what am I” 2 year old bullshit, we should probably just agree to disagree.

    It wasn’t that hard.

    I get that you and others here want unfettered access to any and all weapons to carry or possess anyway you want with zero restrictions ever, super, but legally you can’t get what you want.

    And yet you still missed. If you can come up with a way to license concealed carry owners that also prevents the government from maintaining or releasing information from a database like the one used by the media outlet that posted addresses of concealed carry permit holders online in New York, I’m all for it.

    But I’m also of the opinion that the government has no business knowing I purchased a gun. I’m for background checks, but once the check is complete, the record of that check should be destroyed from every government record.

    Thumb up 2

  24. richtaylor365 *

    As with most things, Xetrov, I think you were more aligned with the issues, than against, but let me ask you some very basic questions;

    1)What is the purpose of the judiciary, why did the founders even create that branch of the government? and I’m asking your opinion, your words, not some cut and paste job from a website.

    2) Do they have legitimacy in their role?

    3) Do citizens get to interpret the law willy nilly (then act on those interpretations like they have legitimacy) or do they take their cue, and most defer, from judicial rulings handed down specifically addressing the issues?

    4) When a citizen is at odds with a ruling, he does not agree with that ruling for whatever reason, does the rule of law stand?

    And yet you still missed. If you can come up with a way to license concealed carry owners that also prevents the government from maintaining or releasing information from a database like the one used by the media outlet that posted addresses of concealed carry permit holders online in New York, I’m all for it.

    Is your beef with the collection of the data, or the leaking of that data to the media? I will need to know before I answer your question.

    But I’m also of the opinion that the government has no business knowing I purchased a gun. I’m for background checks, but once the check is complete, the record of that check should be destroyed from every government record.

    I have a similar opinion, it is none of their business, but since the genie has been let out of the bottle (gun data bases do exist) I don’t know how to get around that.

    Interestingly (although it may not be to you) my opinion on this issue has evolved. Initially I thought gun data bases were a good thing, law abiding citizens would have no problem with this because (like registering your car and allowing them that info.) nothing nefarious was planned, and it did help law enforcement solve crimes. Citizens should do what they can to help to keep society safe. But then stuff like what you referred to above did happen, the info. was not safe or protected. And progressives made it a point of limiting gun rights. So now my attitude is that they can’t be trusted and that is a shame. LE is on their own. Yes, it makes their job harder but my Constitutional rights trumps the ease or difficulty they face in solving crimes. I would prefer we work together as a team but that cooperation infers that we have similar interests, we don’t.

    Thumb up 0

  25. Mook

    3) Do citizens get to interpret the law willy nilly (then act on those interpretations like they have legitimacy) or do they take their cue, and most defer, from judicial rulings handed down specifically addressing the issues?

    A better question is, does a radicalized judiciary get to “interpret” laws however they wish it to be, including inventing laws out of thin air willy nilly and overturning legitimate elections results which certain judges disagree with?

    You defer to the judiciary to an extreme in my opinion, unwilling to acknowledge judicial overreaches and their threat to our freedoms, a deference which you underline with this statement

    I don’t need to, the courts have decided that for us.

    And that’s your position in a nutshell. Stated plainly, you are willing to roll over on fundamental constitutional rights if a court decides it. That’s YOUR measure of legitimacy and it’s not a position that most other conservatives, libertarians or constitutionalists of ANY stripe would agree with.

    Look, on one side of the coin is anarchy, but on the other side we have those who are blind to the fact that the judiciary is as every bit a threat to our freedoms if not more so, than the illegal actions of our President and overreaches by Congress. Just because one of these branches “decides” on something, it doesn’t make it right or lawful and it’s dangerous to have a citizenry that believes that they do.

    There’s probably a broad consensus that today’s gun licensing requirements are not overly onerous in most states. But that shouldn’t be because some court out of their imperial magnanimity deigned to “permit” us peons to exercise certain of our constitutional rights.. but not others. Any court that has the power to force citizens to take a 10 hour gun training class before being able to carry a gun (not unreasonable at first glance, but still debate-able) also has the power to, with a more liberal judiciary, change those requirements to something along the lines of the scenario SO spelled out above. In fact, SO’s scenario is not unreasonable in the least given the long track record of liberal activist judges who actually ruled and “decided” on full-on gun bans for all citizens in their jurisdictions. None of us should be comfortable with giving that power to the judiciary without question, especially when there exists clear language to the contrary in the US Constitution.

    Thumb up 0

  26. richtaylor365 *

    So, we are backing to waving our conservative credentials in the air, and labeling those that don’t march lock step with our views RINO’s, how boring.

    I give legitimacy to the judiciary because that is how the framers wanted it. Funny how those that fall back so easily on the Constitution (or what they think it says) so easily dismiss a large part of that Constitution. If you want to protect and defend the Constitution, than respect it forchrissakes, all of it, including the judicial powers. If you can’t respect our system ,it’s checks and balances, and the preeminence of judicial review, than you are an anarchist, whether you care to admit it or not. You don’t get to pick and chose, what parts you like and only follow those, that is what our President does.

    I think I have a healthy respect (and skepticism) of our court system, been a part of it and seen it in action more than probably most here. Never said it was perfect and never said that all judges get it right, but when they get it wrong, we have a system in place to review and correct.

    And given your comment, I’ll put in on the ledger side that wants the right to carry any weapon ever created in any manner you want, with zero restrictions, ever, got it. But don’t pretend that you know more about the 2nd Amendment, and what it means than everyone else, because The Supreme Court had a different take on it (now is where you can say ,”F*ck those guys, what do they know? And if you abide by their decisions that you are just rolling over”.)

    The courts have decided that some restrictions are reasonable, but some are not, such as the “pressing need’ and “good character” hurdles that I mentioned in the post, so them throwing these two restrictions out was a good thing. But if you think background checks are a good idea, or restrictions on mentally ill, violent felons or minors not being able to purchase guns, if you are for these, than all that talk about unfettered access goes right out the window.

    I mentioned the gun safety course as being a good idea, but if someone wants to challenge this as not being reasonable and too onerous and they threw it out, I would abide by their ruling, just as if the 50 states all want to adopt “Constitution Carry”, fine as well. See, this is where we are at now, accepting (well, some of us are accepting) that restrictions are in place. Now the battle is to weigh each restriction on its own merit, and see if it as value or not. Being required to apply for a concealed weapons permit, the procedures for obtaining a permit, and the costs, those are all restrictions that can be weighed and discarded if not compelling.

    Thumb up 1

  27. Mook

    I give legitimacy to the judiciary because that is how the framers wanted it.

    When you responded to Xetrov’s question

    Can you provide a different definition for “Shall not be infringed” other than…”Shall not be infringed”?

    with this reply:

    I don’t need to, the courts have decided that for us.

    then you’ve lost credibility to claim that you’re supporting the framers of the Constitution, because no framer of the US constitution would support your extreme deference to the “current opinion” of certain Justices in defiance of what’s written in the US Constitution. If the court has “decided” it, then, well, nothing more to say, right Rich? Anyone disagreeing with you is a wingnut anarchist, right?

    But don’t pretend that you know more about the 2nd Amendment, and what it means than everyone else

    Typical over the top unjustified (did I ever claim to “know more about the 2nd amendment”?) butt-hurt drama queen response.

    Truth is, the judiciary has taken unconstitutional leaps with rulings calling for bans on guns.. that is uncontestable fact. Given that truth, I reject your assertion that we need to roll over because a court has “decided” for us. Sorry

    Thumb up 1

  28. richtaylor365 *

    then you’ve lost credibility to claim that you’re supporting the framers of the Constitution, because no framer of the US constitution would support your extreme deference to the “current opinion” of certain Justices in defiance of what’s written in the US Constitution.

    And right there you’ve lost all credibility to following or adhering to the Constitution because that is exactly how it is suppose to work, namely that the judiciary decides, they interpret meaning, application, and constitutionality, not you, them. You are no better than Obama, cutting and pasting to suit your own whims, if one branch of the government is in your way or not cooperating to your satisfaction, marginalize them, cut them out of the loop and withhold legitimacy, well played.

    If the court has “decided” it, then, well, nothing more to say, right Rich?

    If it is SCOTUS, well then, Yeah, they get to decide, or do you think the Constitution is wrong?

    Anyone disagreeing with you is a wingnut anarchist, right?

    Ah, I just saw what you did, anyone disagreeing with your own personal flavor of conservativism, you call a RINO, but when I say that someone who does not follow the rule of law is an anarchist, you substitute that with someone disagreeing with me. Sorry, but people have been disagreeing with me ever since I started writing here, none of them I thought anarchists.

    did I ever claim to “know more about the 2nd amendment”?

    Yes, you did, right here;

    especially when there exists clear language to the contrary in the US Constitution.

    Saying clear language exists that contradicts their ruling, is saying they got it wrong.

    I reject your assertion that we need to roll over because a court has “decided” for us.

    You totally got that wrong, was it on purpose? I think I have said 3 times in this post that sometimes the courts get it wrong, they are not perfect, but the system affords us a means to review and correct, just like what the Ninth Circuit did here with this ruling, they corrected a bad ruling from a lower court, our system at work. Now, if you want to accuse me of rolling over because I have a deference for The Constitution (all of it, not just bits and pieces of it), have at it.

    Thumb up 0

  29. Mook

    Saying clear language exists that contradicts their ruling, is saying they got it wrong.

    The 2nd amendment “clear language” was in SUPPORT of court rulings overturning gun bans. Based on your choice of words, I’m asking you whether you disagree or agree with the court ruling on gun bans.. or does it depend on the court ruling in your view? What I’ve read from you, you’re willing to swallow anything as long as the court “decides” it, per everything written on this thread.

    If the court is wrong on a gun ruling or a ruling any other constitutional matter, is that OK with you Rich?

    If it is SCOTUS, well then, Yeah, they get to decide, or do you think the Constitution is wrong?

    That’s 100% you Rich asserting the SCOTUS qualifier. You are trying to steal a base through dishonesty.

    In the context of this post, no ONE other than you asserted the SCOTUS. So what if a lower court ruled that banning guns is OK? You OK with that? Because, after all, you did claim that as long as the “courts decided for us” , that was the bar which you held as the final decision, right? Again, none or few honest libertarian, conservative or constitutionalist would agree with that.

    Thumb up 0

  30. richtaylor365 *

    Mook, I have asked you several questions in the above comments and you go on your merry way, ignoring them, too busy to make your point, some dialogue.

    Then to make matters worse, you ask me questions, which btw I have answered (no reciprocity from you) yet, you ignore my answers.

    If the court is wrong on a gun ruling or a ruling any other constitutional matter, is that OK with you Rich?

    So what if a lower court ruled that banning guns is OK? You OK with that?

    Asked and answered several times, or would you prefer just to argue with yourself?

    Thumb up 1

  31. Xetrov

    1)What is the purpose of the judiciary, why did the founders even create that branch of the government? and I’m asking your opinion, your words, not some cut and paste job from a website.

    To interpret the laws, and rule based on those interpretations. In the case of the SCOTUS, to ultimately provide a check/balance against the other two branches of the Federal government.

    2) Do they have legitimacy in their role?

    As long as their decisions are based on the rule of law, and not politics, sure.

    3) Do citizens get to interpret the law willy nilly (then act on those interpretations like they have legitimacy) or do they take their cue, and most defer, from judicial rulings handed down specifically addressing the issues?

    If they do, they risk being thrown in prison. Unless Congress sees fit to change the laws, or…

    4) When a citizen is at odds with a ruling, he does not agree with that ruling for whatever reason, does the rule of law stand?

    That depends. Did the rule of law stand for Rosa Parks when the bus driver altered the seating on the bus, forcing her to move, despite the Judicial branch’s previous precedent of holding up segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson)? No, it changed when the SCOTUS ruled segregated buses unconstitutional in Browder v. Gayle.

    On the larger topic of government in general –

    The checks and balances in place in the Federal government work, so long as the three branches of the Federal Government are actually working as designed. Legislative makes a law. Executive executes the law. Judicial interprets the law. If the Judicial finds a law unconstitutional, and the Legislative thinks it warrants a change, they can change the Constitution. If the legislative branch is dysfunctional (as the current one clearly is), that check/balance is removed from the equation.

    The clearly unconstitutional moves being made by the current administration are being met with “Meh, what can we do about it?” from both houses of Congress. Clearly something is not running as designed. Is the Judicial going to weigh in on the lawsuits being brought against the Administration? We will see.

    Thumb up 3

  32. hist_ed

    Like CM, I’ve been mostly sitting this out, but I do have a question or two:

    First, Rich, you said this: “Xetrov, I know what the 2nd Amendment says, but where in there does it mention handguns or the right to carry concealed?”

    Handguns are arms. I looked up the definition just to make sure (arms: “weapons, especially firearms.”-dictionary.com).
    Do you think that handguns aren’t arms? The Washington quote above shows that George thought they were.

    Second, the 2nd says “bear arms” without qualification to the means of bearing them. Why shouldn’t that include carrying a pistol in a pocket?

    Third, what, Rich, is the political purpose of the Second Amendment? Why did the Founders include it?

    Carry on.

    Thumb up 1

  33. richtaylor365 *

    Thoughtful comment, Xetrov, I agree with 98% of that.

    As long as their decisions are based on the rule of law, and not politics, sure.

    Since The Constitution grants them arbiter powers, their decisions are the rule of law, political or otherwise.

    Did the rule of law stand for Rosa Parks when the bus driver altered the seating on the bus, forcing her to move,

    You answered your own question here;

    If they do, they risk being thrown in prison. Unless Congress sees fit to change the laws

    And that is exactly what happened with the Rose Parks case, that particular law had standing and was enforceable, at that time. And the process you describe, wrongs being righted through the judicial review, culminating in a SCOTUS decision, another example that our Constitution had it right.

    Hist_ed, many of the questions you asked were already answered in previous comments, asked by others, but I understand reading through a gaggle of comments can be tedious.

    First, Rich, you said this: “Xetrov, I know what the 2nd Amendment says, but where in there does it mention handguns or the right to carry concealed?”
    Handguns are arms. I looked up the definition just to make sure (arms: “weapons, especially firearms.”-dictionary.com).
    Do you think that handguns aren’t arms? The Washington quote above shows that George thought they were.

    It is the job of the judiciary to interpret laws, to determine meaning, application, and the ability to pass Constitutional muster, and part of this process is to examine the actual texts. Legislatures enact laws made of words, actual words that have meaning, not their intentions and not society’s meaning-of-the-moment. Now when ambiguities arise, that is when they earn their salaries. Some would say that the 2nd Amendment is clear cut and obvious, but a history of the judicial process in how they have defined the amendment would say otherwise. Prior to United States v. Emerson (2001) the “collectivist rights view” prevailed (for over 200 hundred years the smartest minds on the bench held this view) which says that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals but actually does nothing more than guarantee a state’s right to arm its militia. But with Emerson (circuit level) and District of Columbia v. Heller (SCOTUS decision) the right of an individual to possess a firearm was established as preeminent. But even here, the court was clear that this in no was grants unfettered access to all weapons, to carry in any fashion, with no restrictions;

    At the same time, the Court recognized that the government can regulate gun rights. The Court said its decision should not be interpreted to question the right of government to: prohibit felons and the mentally ill from owning weapons, prohibit guns in schools or public buildings, ban certain categories of guns not commonly used for self-defense, and to establish certain other conditions on gun ownership.

    Yes, I do think handguns fall under the definition of “arms”, and thus has certain 2nd Amendment protections, but the point that I have tried to make ad nauseaum is that the judiciary decides the meaning of laws, I can render an opinion but the Constitution never granted the individual the power to weigh all judicial decisions, to live and abide by those he like and discard or ignore the rest.

    Second, the 2nd says “bear arms” without qualification to the means of bearing them. Why shouldn’t that include carrying a pistol in a pocket?

    How I read the 2nd Amendment, I think it should. As far as I can tell, “bear” means to carry or have on one’s person. I threw out the question of where in the amendment it mentions the right to carry concealed only as an exercise in granting legitimacy to the judiciary since the Constitution empowers them to provide meaning and scope. One of the decisions they have made in this area is to make carrying a concealed firearm illegal (in California). Ditto with laws about carrying concealed in a vehicle. Yes, I do think that this is an infringement on the 2nd Amendment, but again, my dissatisfaction with specific rulings in no way undermines their legitimacy in their power to render them.

    Third, what, Rich, is the political purpose of the Second Amendment? Why did the Founders include it?

    Mostly because they took the DOI to heart;

    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

    Altering or abolishing is damn hard without the needed firepower to back it up. All that other flowery stuff about dictators always go after the guns, that we need guns to make sure the government does its job, and that a well armed citizenry secures the rights granted by The Constitution, all that stuff is also true, but it is mostly the first part.

    Thumb up 0

  34. Xetrov

    Since The Constitution grants them arbiter powers, their decisions are the rule of law, political or otherwise.

    I wasn’t saying they don’t have the power to make a decision based on political or other reasons. Just that they have no “legitimacy” if they do.

    You answered your own question here;

    If they do, they risk being thrown in prison. Unless Congress sees fit to change the laws

    And that is exactly what happened with the Rose Parks case, that particular law had standing and was enforceable, at that time.

    Congress didn’t change the law. SCOTUS found the law unconstitutional…after previously finding it (segregation) constitutional.

    Legislatures enact laws made of words, actual words that have meaning, not their intentions and not society’s meaning-of-the-moment.

    Unless the current POTUS deems he doesn’t like certain words, then they get “exempted”.

    Prior to United States v. Emerson (2001) the “collectivist rights view” prevailed (for over 200 hundred years the smartest minds on the bench held this view) which says that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals but actually does nothing more than guarantee a state’s right to arm its militia.

    What makes you think this? Those who actually wrote the Constitution did not. What court rulings define it as a collective right explicitly, and not an individual right during those 200 years? United States v. MIller (1939) does not. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1856) specifically stated, “It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right…to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” Bliss v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (1822) certainly found in favor of individual rights to bear arms (incidentally, the first concealed carry ruling as well, though it was just a sword sheathed in a cane – still considered “arms” back then). And there are dozens of quotes from constitutional scholars, members of the judiciary, etc. that all point to it being an individual right between 1801 and 2001.

    Thumb up 2

  35. richtaylor365 *

    What makes you think this?

    Prior to Heller, all SCOTUS rulings on 2nd Amendment applications confirmed a “collectivist rights” view.

    United States v. Cruikshank

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank (1876)

    “In addition, the Justices ruled that the Second Amendment only restricts the power of the national government, and that it does not grant private citizens a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.[5]”

    United States v. Miller (1939)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

    the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.[10][11]

    It was the Emerson ruling which changed all that, making it an individual right, not a collective right.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Emerson

    holding that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees individuals the right to bear arms

    The Emerson court broke with long standing precedent and recognized the individual rights view of the Second Amendment, to the exclusion of the other two views (held by every Circuit until Emerson was handed down).

    But it was Heller that took the Emerson case and made it national

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

    District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

    And one more citation;

    http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/beararms.htm

    In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Court considered the following question: Do D.C. Code Section 7-2502.02(a)(4), which generally bars the registration of handguns; Section 22-4504(a), which bars carrying a pistol without a license; and Section 7-2507.02, which requires that all lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
    The Court concluded that the Second Amendment does establish an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and hunting. The Court concluded that the D.C. gun ban could not stand.

    Note also, that this citation shoots down your Miller example;

    Miller was subject to two possible interpretations. One, that the Second Amendment is an individual right, but that the right only extends to weapons commonly used in militias (the defendants in Miller were transporting sawed-off shotguns). The second–broader–view of Miller is that the Amendment guarantees no rights to individuals at all, and the defendants lost the case as soon as it was obvious that they were not members of a state militia.

    It was Heller who FIRST said that the 2nd Amendment is an individual freedom, even for those individuals not affiliated with any state-regulated militia.

    How did we end up so far in the weeds?

    Thumb up 0

  36. Mook

    Rich Taylor gives EXTREME deference to court opinions and decisions, even when history shows that many of those court decisions are both unconstitutional and immoral.

    Rich, you mentioned upthread that you agreed with 98% of Xetrov’s comments. His comment were so innocuous and uncontroversial for conservatives and liberatarians.. please explain your”2% disagreement”. I’d really like to hear that.

    Thumb up 0

  37. Xetrov

    Prior to Heller, all SCOTUS rulings on 2nd Amendment applications confirmed a “collectivist rights” view.

    You will forgive me if I don’t heed the hallowed and unbiased opinion of Wikipedia editors.

    United States v. Cruikshank

    This was not a ruling explicitly about the Second Amendment (Neither was Dred Scott obviously, which clearly supports it being an individual right, and which you appear to have ignored in my response). The actual ruling of Cruikshank (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/case.html) states –

    The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.

    That indicates the only thing the ruling does is identify that the Federal Government cannot limit the right, but that the Court believes that States can. Again, nothing about a “collectivist right” idea for the Second Amendment.

    In fact, further down in the ruling in reference to the previous court ruling that they overturned with this decision, it states –

    The second [count from the ruling, not the Second Amendment] avers an intent to hinder and prevent the exercise by the same persons of the “right to keep and bear arms for a lawful purpose.”

    Again indicating that they recognize an individual right to bear arms “for a lawful purpose”.

    United States v. Miller

    http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html

    The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

    This means that because a sawed off shotgun is not used by the militia, it is not a suitable weapon to be protected for the personal use of citizens. It has no reference anywhere to the “collectivist rights” view. The last sentence ends with “such a weapon” indicating that the court is only ruling on this specific question of a sawed-off shotgun, and recognize that it is a “citizen’s” right to bear other weapons that are protected – any type of weapon used by the “well regulated militia”. Follow?

    It was Heller who FIRST said that the 2nd Amendment is an individual freedom

    It was the first that explicitly defined it as an individual right. It was implied and referred to previously as such in multiple other SCOTUS and non-SCOTUS rulings. But in regard to your previous claim that “the “collectivist rights view” prevailed (for over 200 hundred years the smartest minds on the bench held this view) which says that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals but actually does nothing more than guarantee a state’s right to arm its militia.”

    That is clearly not as universal a belief as you thought for those 200 years.

    Thumb up 0

  38. richtaylor365 *

    Rich Taylor gives EXTREME deference to court opinions and decisions

    Rich Taylor gives EXTREME deference to the process of court opinions and decisions, Mook gives EXTREME deference to only parts of The Constitution he likes, the rest is just an annoyance to him.

    There, fixed it for you.

    even when history shows that many of those court decisions are both unconstitutional and immoral.

    And who determines whether they are unconstitutional or immoral? You? I prefer the system that the framers preferred, and the one they enacted, namely that SCOTUS decides these things, not you, and when they do find the current law lacking, they can correct the injustice themselves.

    please explain your”2% disagreement”

    You think that might have been the parts that I block quoted then commented on? Rather obvious, wasn’t it?

    I’d really like to hear that

    Sorry, but you used up all your get out of jail free cards. I finally figured you out, you are one of those hit and run bloggers. You know the type, ask questions then don’t bother to read the answer given to you, then ask the same question again later. Then when a question is presented to you, as open and honest dialogue should go, give and stake, just ignore the question, either through laziness, rudeness, or just no rudimentary understanding of fair play.

    These are the types of posts I really enjoy, the ones were right leaning folks mix it up on an issue. Most of the right thinkers here I find honest and articulate. Most of the comments from both SO and Xetrov were reasonable and persuasive, and it is these types of comments that make the post interesting.

    But you just come here to agitate, not provide anything useful to keep the dialogue going, no, you prefer to argue with yourself since there is no give and take , and you ignore the other side. When you take the time, play by the rules, and attempt a dialogue with someone, most of the stuff you write I agree with. It is folks like you that could make this blog better.

    Thumb up 0

  39. richtaylor365 *

    This was not a ruling explicitly about the Second Amendment

    Maybe not ‘explicitly”, but it had far reaching 2nd Amendment consequences.
    http://www.shmoop.com/right-to-bear-arms/united-states-v-cruikshank.html

    The first of these was United States v. Cruikshank. You can read more about this case here, but the short version is that in 1876 the Court ruled that the Second Amendment served only to protect the states against the federal government. Because the states in 1787 were worried that a too-powerful federal government might trample their rights, the Court said, the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution guaranteeing their right to maintain militias. The Second Amendment did not, in this interpretation, provide any individual right to keep and bear arms; it only guaranteed a state’s right to maintain a militia. Moreover, since these militias were to be “well regulated,” and since the Second Amendment was aimed only at the threat posed by the federal government, state governments were—according to this ruling—free to regulate guns in any manner they saw fit.

    The collectivist rights” view in action, notice all the references to state militias and how gun rights are tied specifically to them.

    Follow?

    No. Not only have I provided numerous citations that point to a “collectivist rights” view, but your own block quote does as well.

    The second–broader–view of Miller is that the Amendment guarantees no rights to individuals at all, and the defendants lost the case as soon as it was obvious that they were not members of a state militia.

    Miller pointed to the need for a state regulated militia in determining gun rights, all my citations provided point to this, at no time prior to Emerson was the individual right to possess firearms affirmed.

    Point of fact, if you Google “first SCOTUS case to affirm individual gun rights”, this is what you get;

    https://www.google.com/search?q=first+SCOTUS+case+to+affirm+individual+gun+rights&rlz=1C1CHNQ_enUS552US552&oq=first+SCOTUS+case+to+affirm+individual+gun+rights&aqs=chrome..69i57.18736j0j8&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

    2 of those citations I have already used in an attempt to convince you. It was first Emerson, then Heller that brought it (a legal declaration affirming the individual right to possess firearms) to prime time, everything prior had a “collectivist rights” view take on it.

    Thumb up 0

  40. Xetrov

    The collectivist rights” view in action, notice all the references to state militias and how gun rights are tied specifically to them.

    Notice how you continue to post someone else’s opinion about the ruling instead of text from the ruling itself. I’m out, we can agree to disagree because you keep ignoring huge chunks of my responses that clearly show an individual right in court rulings from 1801-2001, or trying to see things that aren’t there (“your own block quote does as well”).

    Peace.

    Thumb up 0

  41. CM

    I really need to take a leaf out of your book in terms of deciding when to leave a discussion, instead of staying until the bitter end….

    Thumb up 1