The "court" can go to hell. Now enforce it.
The ruling is yet another setback for the NRA, which filed a brief supporting Peterson. The NRA has pursued a strategy of using litigation to eliminate gun-safety laws one at a time, which increases the sales and profits of the arms industry that funds the NRA... “The NRA is basically helping to make sure the gun industry can increase sales,” Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a New York Democrat and longtime gun control advocate, told The Huffington Post.
Nope, no bias from Laywers.com here.
this is a great example of why naive acceptance of *any* gov’t violation of the constitution will be turned around and used against us to further limit the right.
this is how the living and breathing constitution is implemented by the leftists. no compromise is ever acceptable. inform your “betters.”
From the linked article:
Back to the Supremes we go.
Conflicts with a 7th Circuit opinion, so the Supreme Court will likely decide.
Conflicts with a 7th Circuit opinion, so the Supreme Court will likely decide.
Conflicts with a 7th Circuit opinion, so the Supreme Court will likely decide.
Composition of the Tenth Circus:
Does this mean I have to wear it out in the open?
Every concealed carry permit (including those issued by shall issue or no permit required states) should be recognized as legal in EVERY STATE.
If we have to recognize their faggot weddings per the 14th ammendment then they need to recognize our right to carry.
Every concealed carry permit (including those issued by shall issue or no permit required states) should be recognized as legal in EVERY STATE.
If we have to recognize their faggot weddings per the 14th ammendment then they need to recognize our right to carry.
Two more states that I will never set my foot in. I guess I will continue to live out my days here in the deep south.
Ah, question, how does someone get his firearm from A to B? Beaming?
How the heck do you bullet-proof a precident? Either it’s a precident or it’s not...
Of course there will be exclusions as with Obamacare: union members, muslims, etc. /s
Court rules wrong.
Various wordings of the Second Amendment were tried during its development. The end result *purposefully* leaves out any enumeration of reasons why an individual has the right to keep and bear Arms. Any reason *why* an individual may or may not keep and bear Arms, was left to the states and the people thereof, to settle among themselves.
The only enumeration in the Second Amendment focuses on what to do about a group of men under Arms - what is to happen when individuals who bear military grade Arms are in a group, and they *are* capable of exercising martial power. What *then,* was to become of that power?
The answer was, that both the states and the federal government would rely upon *the group* being formally mustered, well-regulated, well trained to Arms, well discplined, and answerable to civilian authority.
Both the states and the federal government sought unity of function and preparedness of the militia of each state. The state militiae should be “well trained to Arms” and be capable of, and mindful of, lawfully exercising martial power and respecting lawful civilian authority.
All the uses of weapons, firearm or not, for non-military purposes, were left to be decided by the states and their people.
Again, there would be no condition within the Second Amendment, by which you do, or do not, have the right to keep and bear Arms; because, the Founding Fathers correctly anticipated that any such enumerated condition might be used as grounds for an individual to either be forced to bear Arms or be stripped of their Arms.
There is a natural right to keep and bear Arms, and the Second Amendment affirms that right.
*Use* of Arms, military, is left to the states and the people of their respective states, to regulate.
*Use* of Arms, civil - for personal defense and hunting - were left to the common law of each state.
We equally, as individuals do have a natural right to keep and bear Arms, for military purposes and for civil purposes.
Yet, the *use* of such Arms, was left to be determined by the states and the respective people of each of such states.
I am very interested in the Constitutional issue of no permits for non-residents. I am personally seriously impacted by this policy of the State of New York, since I am responsible for an elderly relative and property there.
The states of New Jersey and Maryland, although they have a law ALLOWING non-resident issue in practice never do so, and as a frequent NH-NOVA traveler these policies adversely affect me as well.
Worst of all is the DC non-issue policy for non-residents, since this policy is directly under the control of Congress which can “legislate...in all cases whatsoever” for this District.
I would think that the full faith and credit clause would operate here (unless Congress has passed rules ALLOWING States to disregard other States’ CCW, I don’t believe this is true), but the inability to exercise a fundamental right on the public highway or while traveling does seem to implicate liberties other than RKBA.
Has this specific (non-resident non-issue) matter ever been presented to the Court?
“... Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that there is no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed firearm in public.”
WTF! The Constitution guarantees individual rights; it doesn’t grant them or deny them! The second amendment embodies specific unalienable individual rights as well as any of the other 1st 10 amendments called the Bill of Rights. These several unalienable rights are absolute but are only a few of the numerous and undefined rights we hold naturally that the General Government can’t infringe upon or take away by any positive law or act of Congress, courts or the President. The only purpose of the Constitution is to authorize a General Government having limited and defined power! Specific rights embodied within the Constitution are there to emphasize... HANDS OFF YOU MORONS! And the 9th and 10th amendments then go on to remind the general government...
9th “...The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10th “... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
These idiots on the court are clueless and should be IMPEACHED!
Congress or the courts can’t restrict or put any conditions on any constitutionally protected right... PERIOD! An enumerated protected right within the Constitution is not positive law, it is natural law which is beyond the meddling by Congress or the courts! It is up to each State and its peoples what practical limitations would/could be imposed on those rights that would not violate the free exercise of those rights!
Does the Constitution grant or restrict the right specifically to whether the weapon can be loaded, and its color only pink, purple or blue? Of course not!
The ruling by the court most definitely RESTRICTS or INFRINGES on free exercise of our right to keep and bear arms in the way or manner best suited for our own personal or defensive needs! And Congress also cant define what those needs are!