1 posted on
02/25/2013 6:20:01 AM PST by
blam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
To: blam
It is only a “precedent” in that idiot circuit and surely it will be appealed, so it is not going to be standing.
2 posted on
02/25/2013 6:23:50 AM PST by
yldstrk
(My heroes have always been cowboys)
To: blam
“The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed”, says a lot. However, one COULD argue that it does NOT say those “arms” can/cannot be loaded. Hmmmmmmmmm?
3 posted on
02/25/2013 6:25:28 AM PST by
DaveA37
To: blam
Open Carry is fine, too.............
4 posted on
02/25/2013 6:25:33 AM PST by
Red Badger
(Lincoln freed the slaves. Obama just got them ALL back......................)
To: blam
OTOH, they believe that faggot pederasts like Sandusky have an absolute right to be Boy Scout leaders, and sleep in pup tents with 13 year old boys.
5 posted on
02/25/2013 6:26:08 AM PST by
Travis McGee
(www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
To: blam
What are they implying?
"Keep" is constitutional, but "bear" isn't?
7 posted on
02/25/2013 6:29:28 AM PST by
Flycatcher
(God speaks to us, through the supernal lightness of birds, in a special type of poetry.)
To: blam
I read the BI article first and my BP went up 10 points, then I read FR comments and I’m back to normal close anyway.
9 posted on
02/25/2013 6:34:41 AM PST by
Rappini
(Veritas vos Liberabit)
To: blam
creates a far-reaching national precedent against carrying a loaded handgun outside the home
So let's see if I am reading this correctly - the founders put the second amendment into our Constitution for the purpose of "We the People" being able to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government takeover, but only inside out homes?
10 posted on
02/25/2013 6:35:37 AM PST by
Cheerio
(Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
To: blam
There is a right to bare arms. If there is not right to carry concealed, then there must be a right to carry openly.
11 posted on
02/25/2013 6:35:58 AM PST by
SampleMan
(Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
To: blam
The Tenth U.S. Circut Court of Appeals is obviously wrong. Sounds like they are confused as to why Lady Justice is blindfolded and it’s not so they can do whatever they want because she can’t see them.
12 posted on
02/25/2013 6:40:44 AM PST by
C.O. Correspondence
(Most bad government has grown out of too much government. . Tommy J)
To: blam
Reading this makes my head @sspode!
I wouldn't have been surprised if the ruling came from Connecticut.
Time is drawing near. Lines are being drawn in the sand, my FRiends.
13 posted on
02/25/2013 6:44:24 AM PST by
Daffynition
(The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted. — D.H.)
To: blam
Oh, now I get it, that’s what it meant in the constitution “right to bear arms if the sheriff’s database says so”.
To: blam
Wow. The 10th Circuit includes Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming. The places you’d think were least likely to grab peoples’ guns.
16 posted on
02/25/2013 6:46:28 AM PST by
pabianice
(washington, dc ..)
To: blam
This ruling, even though I disagree with it, only applies to CCW, not the general issue of carrying firearms outside the home. If a state forbids both open and concealed carry, then we have no 2A rights to bear arms.
18 posted on
02/25/2013 6:50:32 AM PST by
umgud
To: blam
Did anyone here see that dumbass cop who pulled over a driver, and asked for his license, and when the guy turned around he saw his CC weapon and told him to put his hands up or he would “shoot him in the back”
Then the dumbass cop ARRESTED HIM for ‘exposing his weapon’
He apparently believes a CC permit means you are REQUIRED to keep it hidden.
I wonder what the resolution was- I hope that stupid cop is fired and the state SUED for hiring cops that stupid.
Does anyone know?
21 posted on
02/25/2013 6:55:35 AM PST by
Mr. K
(There are lies, damned lies, statistics, and democrat talking points.)
To: blam
Is this a narrowly worded opinion against only concealed carry as a states issue but opens the door to fully open carry as the federal purview?
22 posted on
02/25/2013 6:58:34 AM PST by
nevergore
("It could be that the purpose of my life is simply to serve as a warning to others.")
To: blam
Quoting the U.S. Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit added, "like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."
In this point, they are exactly correct. IMHO.
The only thing they failed to note, is that the Right can only be encumbered against the Rights of another law-abiding Citizen - not a criminal. However, using data gathered from non-judicial sources with no adjudication allows for too much variation across different venues, and should be stricken for that.
Also, that means that no Weapon of any type can be carried "concealed", knives, batons, tazers, self-defense sprays, etc. Law-abiding Citizens have no fear that any of them will be used against them, including concealed guns. Criminals should at all times they violate another Citizen's Rights!
32 posted on
02/25/2013 7:33:47 AM PST by
brityank
(The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
To: blam
Makes one wonder how they feel about concealed opinions! Maybe we need colored stars to unconceal our religions, too.
39 posted on
02/25/2013 8:30:11 AM PST by
HomeAtLast
( You're either with the Tea Party, or you're with the EBT Party.)
To: blam
In light of our nations extensive practice of restricting citizens freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendments protections. How does "extensive practice" have any bearing on constitutionality? Either the practices are constitutional or they're not. There was an extensive practice of racial segregation in schools when Brown v. Board of Education was decided -- its prevalence didn't somehow make it right.
43 posted on
02/25/2013 8:38:51 AM PST by
Sloth
(Rather than a lesser Evil, I voted for Goode.)
To: blam
“...freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendments protections.”
I have written several times that we need to spend more effort on determining the scope and meaning of the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, and that if we don’t it will be done for us.
Those against restrictive firearms laws write about “shall not be infringed” a lot, but if something is not within the scope of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, restricting that something is not an infringement.
45 posted on
02/25/2013 8:46:13 AM PST by
KrisKrinkle
(Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
To: blam
The wording of the 2nd Amendment is plain and impossible to misconstrue. Therefore, rulings like this one are deliberate attempts to undermine the amendment, and the Constitution as a whole, by those who fervently hate both. I hope and pray they will someday be tried for treason by a REAL court of PATRIOTS following the latter's victory in the imminent rebellion that is surely coming.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson