Posted on 02/27/2012 7:35:49 AM PST by neverdem
Over the last few years, the Second Amendment has experienced somewhat of a rebirth, thanks largely to a pair of Supreme Court decisions: District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.
In these seminal decisions, the Supreme Court affirmed the understanding of the Founding Fathers that there is indeed an individual right to keep and bear arms, a God-given right to protect oneself that is guaranteed to us in the Second Amendment to our Constitution. Cities with oppressive restrictions on guns, including the District of Columbia and Chicago, have been forced to at least recognize that they cannot simply deny citizens their right to possess firearms. At the same time, however, these cities continue to erect barriers to citizens seeking to exercise their rights.
In other words, despite the victories in the Supreme Court, the battle for Second Amendment rights in America is far from over. There is perhaps no better reminder of this unfortunate state of affairs than a recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Sue Myerscough, an appointee of President Barack Obama.
Two pro-Second Amendment groups — the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Illinois Carry — filed a lawsuit last May challenging the ban on carrying concealed guns in the Land of Lincoln, which is the only state with a complete ban on the books. The common-sense basis for the lawsuit is that Illinois’ ban on concealed carry deprives citizens of the fundamental right of self-defense, simply because they are in public.
While Judge Myerscough conceded the Second Amendment protects a “general right to carry guns that include a right to carry operable guns in public,” she tossed out the lawsuit, claiming that the “Supreme Court has not recognized a right to bear firearms outside the home.”
As absurd as this federal judge’s ruling appears on the surface, it unfortunately finds some basis in the inchoate opinion issued four years ago by the nation’s high court in Heller. While the five-member majority in that case importantly recognized the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms — and in so finding, invalidated the District’s restrictive gun control ordinance — the actual language of the opinion has been interpreted now to recognize the right to possess a firearm only inside one’s home.
Common sense, and a fair reading of the history of the Second Amendment, leads to the obvious conclusion that its guarantee of the “right to keep and bear arms” was never intended to be limited to intra-home firearms. Unfortunately, the uncertainty created by the pinched opinion in Heller — which may have been necessary to secure the fifth vote (Justice Anthony Kennedy) — is now causing serious damage to firearms rights, as is manifest in Judge Myerscough’s recent ruling.
SAF and Illinois Carry are taking their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. But the lower court’s ruling does drive home a couple of important points.
First, the U.S. Senate needs to stop sitting on its hands, and pass the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R. 822), which received overwhelming support in the House last November (passing 272 to 154). This legislation would treat concealed carry licenses much like driver’s licenses, through the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, and require states to recognize concealed carry permits from other states.
Perhaps even more important, however, this ruling by a lifetime-tenured federal judge reminds us of the importance of presidential appointments to the federal bench — and the severe damage to our Second Amendment rights that can be expected from a second term for President Barack Obama.
Bob Barr represented Georgia’s Seventh District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He provides regular commentary to Daily Caller readers.
>> While Heller certainly was a victory, it was never the total and complete victory some of my pro-gun friends thought it was. Basically all the decision said was the government could not impose an absolute ban on firearms and as I guessed the gun control side was going to come back and say, “OK, this ruling means that we can still do anything except a total ban.” <<
.
The Heller decision was properly written.
The court was correct to limit itself to just what had been addressed in the suit. the SCOTUS is an appelate court, and has no original jurisdiction. Even added dicta beyond that would have been treated disdainfully by the statist judges.
>> “When I was in high school, every boy had his loaded rifle in the rack of his truck to haul @ss out after school to catch as much daylight as possible.” <<
.
I can hear Caroll O’Connor singing “Those were the days...” :o)
If you open the bolt with a loaded mag in the receiver, a cartridge will be pushed in.
Second amendment protections in the constitution we put in place so that the people could shoot agents of an oppressive government....not deer.
I’m from Chicago and if I told you I’d have to kill you.
Of additional interest: http://www.chicagolawbulletin.com/Articles/2012/02/29/FOID-2-29.aspx
If you can be deemed a felon do you ever get your rights back?
No, it won't.
Open bolt == "SAFE GUN"
If you CLOSE it as you say, and LOCK the bolt then you are back to "CHAMBERED" which is where we started. The OZ lady misunderstood "loaded" to be synonymous with "chambered" It is not.
Note the difference.
ROUND CHAMBERED = NOT SAFE
LOADED but NOT CHAMBERED = SAFE
You can close the bolt without chambering a cartridge in pretty much anything with an open breach. If not, pull the mag, cycle the bolt till clear, then close the action while clear, then load the mag. AGAIN, LOADED but NOT CHAMBERED and STILL SAFE!
On every BA gun I have, when you slide the bolt back, the spring in the mag pushes a cartridge upward.
...where it is HARMLESS until you slide the bolt forward and lock it.
Can you clear the chamber? Of course you can. Can you clear the magazine? Sure you can.
Can you now close the bolt and lock it? Great!
Now the gun is unloaded and safe. There is no cartridge in the chamber.
Now put the magazine back in! TADA! The gun is now LOADED, but there is NO CARTRIDGE IN THE CHAMBER.
S A F E
You can also generally do the same real easy with any BA rifle or shotgun with a loaded magazine by simply depressing the next cartridgewhen you slide the bolt forward so it it doesn't catch on the loader.
The point was that the lady upthread zotted someone for having a loaded magazine as being the same as a chambered round. It's not the same, and it's not safe to not know.
You just proved my point completely.
I just proved your pointlessness!
By confining defense to the "home", everywhere else is open to criminal exploitation, something I doubt the founders would have agreed with.
Suppose someone said you could only use your cell phone in your home? Would leftists agree? It's a communication tool- something people might want wherever it's needed. Guns are defensive tools. They too, are something people may want when it's needed.
Trouble with statists and utopians everywhere is they don't understand Free Will and the part it's played in America's exceptionalism. But they will, it's coming soon.
The pointlessness was opening the bolt in the first place. That was my point.
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.