This Ping List is for all news pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from this Ping List.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Posted on 05/31/2023 4:46:40 AM PDT by marktwain
The right to keep and bear arms necessarily includes the right to obtain arms. Arms can be obtained in several ways. Those include: making your own arms; buying your arms from someone else; having your arms given to you; finding arms that have been lost or discarded; and stealing arms that belong to someone else.
The most common method of obtaining arms is to buy them. The right to buy arms is clearly included in the right to keep and bear arms as an ancillary right necessary to maintain the right to keep and bear them. Ancillary rights necessary to preserve the right to keep and bear arms have been recognized by the Supreme Court and inferior courts as necessary to maintain the right to keep and bear arms.
Under the Supreme Court decision in Bruen, if a statute implicates an action protected under the Second Amendment, the State has the burden of proving, with the historical record, such infringements were common and accepted just before and after the ratification of the Second Amendment; or, to a lesser extent, shortly after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. Occasional statutes or local laws or laws of short duration are not sufficient to establish a law as common and accepted. Laws which affected only a small percentage of the population are unlikely to meet the historical test. Governments in the late colonial and early republic era had the same concerns with disarming dangerous individuals as do governments today. They could have enacted laws requiring a permit to purchase firearms. The lack of such laws is evidence they were not widely viewed as acceptable infringements on the right to keep and bear arms,
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
A permit is when the government steals your rights and rents them back to you
My state no longer requires those restrictions thanks to our legislators and governor who signed it.
We’re in full compliance now
Over the last 100 years, infringements on the exercise of Second Amendment rights have created bureaucracies and a mythology of the usefulness or necessity of government power to dole out those rights to a favored few.
************************************************************
Weingarten above talks about “government bureaucracies”. But, he misses one point. 90% of “government bureaucracies” are staffed by Democrats. In American History there is no known “government bureaucracy” (i.e. Democrats), involved in controversial regulation, that could demonstrate a historical pattern of fairness and equity to all with THE WORST offenders being our current DOJ bureaucracy and FBI bureaucracy.
In an equitable and sane world, Democrats, always seeking mischief, would not be allowed to occupy more than 40% of available positions in government bureaucracies.
If that one simple fact could be realized, government might possibly be trusted enough to keep guns out of the hands of insane people like the recent tranny shooters and the Las Vegas shooter.
“If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262)
Free men don’t ask permission.
I firmly believe that no state,county or municipality should be allowed to pass any legislation regulating the manufacture,distribution or possession of firearms.Only the US Congress should be allowed to do so...and any legislation passed by Congress should,of course,be closely scrutinized by the Federal courts.
Unless of course you want to stage a protest, whereby you will need to purchase a "permit" and get approval from any number of city councils or other city ordinance officers.
IOW, to practice your free speech you will have to pay up. OR show up in droves like BLM or Antifa and not worry about those silly permits.
Correct. The basic premise is true in her opinion. I agree that permitting is an infringement. Then again, merely possessing a permit does not mean one owns a firearm. Much as having a drivers license does not mean one owns a vehicle.
Or, government at all levels could just look up the definition of “shall not be infringed”.
If only the damned founders had been clear and concise about what they meant!
Law abiding citizens don’t commit crimes.
When Tyranny Becomes Law, Rebellion Becomes Duty!
Stay frosty UNIXFox
From Wikipedia:
To combat growing criminal violence in certain neighborhoods of New York City, including the assassination attempt on New York City mayor William J. Gaynor and the murder of author David Graham Phillips, Timothy Sullivan led the state legislature to enact the Sullivan Act in 1911. It made the possession of a handgun without a permit a crime, and instituted issuance of concealed carry permits at the discretion of local law enforcement.
The law states that to obtain a permit, the applicant must “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession”. The state had clarified that this must be a non-speculative need for self-defense as to establish a proper cause to grant a permit.
The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, along with Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, who failed to obtain a permit in New York state, challenged that law, seeking to make the issue of permits no longer discretionary.
Nash, for example, sought a permit for a handgun after a string of robberies in his neighborhood but was denied as he could not prove a need for self-defense.
The plaintiffs argued that the law and judgments against their permits were flawed; “Good, even impeccable, moral character plus a simple desire to exercise a fundamental right is, according to these courts, not sufficient. Nor is living or being employed in a ‘high crime area.’”
The Sullivan Act is considered the first may-issue public carry law in the United States.
Thomas’ majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, effectively rendered public carry a constitutional right under the Second Amendment. Thomas wrote, “The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’ We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.”
The Court held: “When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct [here the right to bear arms], the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “’unqualified command.’”
Justice Alito wrote a separate concurrence to the majority... “Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun.” Justice Alito also questioned whether a person bent on committing an atrocity such as a mass shooting would be deterred because it would be illegal for him to carry a firearm outside of his home. Alito further pointed out that the recent shooting rampage in Buffalo occurred in New York, and New York’s law had done nothing to stop the perpetrator.
By July 1, 2022, Hochul signed a revised Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) into law with restrictions on public possession of guns based on the decision from Bruen. The new law removes the old “may-issue” standard that had been challenged, but adds new requirements including classroom training and a background check of the applicant’s social media posts for any red flags. In addition, the law prohibits guns from being carried in sensitive locations that include polling places, schools, and churches, and well as New York’s tourist attractions like Times Square. The law came into effect on September 1, 2022; an initial lawsuit seeking to block enforcement of the law was thrown out due to lack of standing though federal judge Glenn Suddaby did agree the new law may be unconstitutional under the Bruen decision. A second lawsuit, filed by citizens that belonged to Gun Owners of America, led to Judge Suddaby to grant an injunction on the law on October 6, 2022, stating that the law’s full list of locations where public carry was banned was likely indefensible, though the state filed an emergency appeal to the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit lifted the injunction, allowing the law to be enforced, while they reviewed their case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Association,_Inc._v._Bruen
Permit means permission. Permission is not needed to exercise a right. When you ask for permission you have surrendered willingly, therefore the state assumes that you have a defect in your sovereign status. The state is correct. Any freeman asking for permission to exercise a right is obviously mentally deficient and in need of some sort of regulation.
You misspelled feral.
If you ask for permission to exercise a right, you obviously have no understanding of law and deserve maltreatment from your government.
And there are,perhaps,a few others I'd support. Possession by the seriously mentally ill for example.
They’re maltreating us in any case these days. Why? Funny dog tiktoks are more importanter to way too many folkx. 😵
This Ping List is for all news pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from this Ping List.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Law abiding citizens don’t commit crimes.
Well they will in a matter of weeks. Just ask all those owners of forearm-braced pistols! A retroactive law which will turn up to 8 million Americans into felons unless something is done rather quickly. All I hear is crickets from our politicians.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.