Posted on 07/11/2022 4:44:44 AM PDT by marktwain
The United States Supreme Court has defended and restored the bear half of the right to keep and bear arms, in the recent Bruen decision.
Much work remains to be done. It is clear that the people have a right to bear arms outside the home. One of the major purposes is for the defense of self and others.
An area left undefined in Bruen is the right to bear arms in defense of self and others while traveling, particularly while traveling across state lines.
There was no prohibition on carrying arms at the time of ratification in 1791. Carrying arms for defense, while traveling, was common and accepted. Even the strictest colonial restrictions on the bearing of arms, the East New Jersey law, enacted in 1686, had an exception for people who were traveling. The colonial law, which was in effect for about six years, was cited by both sides in the Bruen decision: From P. 6 of amicus curiae briefs on Bruen.
In 1686, East New Jersey enacted a law providing that no person “shall presume privately to wear any pocket pistol, skeines, stilettoes, daggers or dirks, or other unusual or unlawful weapons,” and that “no planter shall ride or go armed with sword, pistol or dagger” except certain officials and “strangers, travelling upon their lawful occasions through this Province, behaving themselves peaceably.”3
An exception noted in the earliest and most extreme of the colonial “bear arms” laws should be given some weight.
As noted by an English traveler in the early Republic, traveling armed was common. From Isaac Weld, TRAVELS THROUGH THE STATES OF NORTH AMERICA 233-34 (2d ed. 1799) (1796, on the roads from Kentucky/Tennessee to and from Philadelphia/ Baltimore:
“the people all travel on horseback, with pistols and swords.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
It should work exactly like a drivers license. Does the Feral government dictate the requirements for them?
The Supreme Court would disagree.
Black Gun Owners Eager to Flex Carry Powers After N.Y. Law Falls
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/black-gun-owners-eager-to-flex-carry-powers-after-n-y-law-falls
Do you have the title of the book? I’d be interested to see if it’s available through Project Gutenberg
It's infringed all the times in ways that states decide and which the courts have ruled are reasonable. Can a felon own a firearm? In most states the answer is no. Can you take a firearm into a court, police station, or jail? In most states the answer is no, and all states place additional restrictions on where you can bring your firearm. Can a mentally handicapped person own firearm? In most states the answer is no. None of those restrictions are part of the Second Amendment. All have been found to be legal.
Drivers licenses work because the states agree to honor those from other states. The states, not the federal government. And even that is not unlimited. Kansas issues restricted licenses to 14 year old drivers. Other states don't have to honor it, and many don't.
“State matter, not a federal one.”
Nope. Interstate commerce is regulated by the Feds and not the states.
So a vehicle that is legally licensed to drive on the public roads in Utah (such as a Polaris) is legal to drive in all fifty states. Meaning that while someone living in California cannot license a Polaris a Polaris with a Utah license plate cannot be barred from driving in California.
Therefore a gun law applicable to California residents cannot be applied to someone temporarily visiting from a state in which that gun law does not apply.
The USSC has yet to rule on this but sooner or later they will because that’s where they’re heading.
It was common before 1968 for felons to own firearms. That is when the federal probation came about
In Wis. it was around 1985.
Doesn’t meet the historical requirement.
Don’t know of any states the stop mentally handicapped from owning firearms.
Those that are criminally mentally Ill yes.
A lot of restrictions have been found legal pre BRUEN.
A standard is in town.
The Bruen decision would seem to require that our Founders recognized some form of gun permits to make such a requirement legitimate. Is anybody aware of such long-standing permit requirements. I’m not.
i will have to call them up later.
The real problem, here, is that some of the States are requiring a "permit" in order to exercise a fundamental, constitutionally protected human right.
If it requires the federal Supreme Court to step in and tell those states "You can't do that. The Constitution which YOU ratified forbids it" ... so be it.
If you want to take your gun to another state, you come under that state’s rules. Just like you come under that state’s laws if you want to drink or drive or build a house or practice your profession there.
You didn’t answer the question. The examples you give are not constitutional rights.
I may have need to go to DC someday. Why should I have to be defenseless to do so?
You can get a concealed carry permit in DC if you take a course and register your firearm, or if you like, you can hire a bodyguard.
Wow. So the states should decide whether they allow slavery? That's your position? Also, can you point me to the part of the Constitution that guarantees slavery and abortion, I forgot where that is.
You can get a concealed carry permit in DC if you take a course and register your firearm,
Can you explain how that would work if I was going to be there for, say, two days?
or if you like, you can hire a bodyguard.
Why should I have to do that? I can protect myself, as the second amendment guarantees, if I am not denied a sidearm. Will the government pay for that since they are denying me my rights?
Do you actually believe the BS you are posting?
I was talking about before the Civil War. In my first post I brought up the Dred Scott decision which threated to spread slavery into the free states. And yes, the original constitution did have a clause that was generally taken as guaranteeing slavery to states that wanted it, a clause that the Chief Justice interpreted as guaranteeing slavery throughout the country.
Do you actually believe the BS you are posting?
I could ask you the same thing. It's not going to happen and nobody with any sense thinks that it can happen or will happen or should happen.
What is that? Restoring 2A rights? It's already happening, incrementally. And you ignored/didn't answer most of the post. The answer to those questions would highlight why is must eventually happen. SCOTUS just affirmed the right to carry a firearm for self defense.
No, Congress cannot overrule the public acts of one state over another.
All this says is that Congress can define the way that people in one state can PROVE the public act when in another state. Unfortunately, this can lead to a national registry of carry permits so that one state can prove that a person has a carry permit from another state.
However, look how well that worked regarding the implementation of Congress' mandated E-Verify system for legal immigrant employment.
-PJ
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.