Two Federal Appeals Courts Put Limits on Gun Rights

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence ^ | December 2nd, 2012 | December 2nd, 2012

[neverdem]

Two Federal Appeals Courts Put Limits on Gun Rights
» by NewsWatch on December 2nd, 2012 Permalink

By LARRY BODINE
Editor in Chief/Lawyers.com

Larry Bodine

Militant gun advocates and firearms industry lobbies will be surprised to learn that there are indeed limits on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and that there is no fundamental right to carry handguns in public.

• New York can require applicants for concealed-carry gun license to articulate a need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community, as the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled on November 27. Kachalsky v. City of Westchester, No. 11-3642. A simple desire to carry a concealed weapon for self-protection isn’t enough.
• The U.S. government can prohibit gun dealers from selling handguns to minors, according to a Fifth Circuit ruling on October 25. See NRA vs. ATF, No. 11-10959. The NRA argued that 11,000 of its members, aged 18 to 21, were unjustly denied their Second Amendment right to buy guns. But the risk of violent crime committed by immature or thrill-bent youngsters is too great, the court said. So the government can prohibit gun sales to crazy people, criminals — and kids.

Gun industry lobbies like the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation have been suing states and cities across the country to push their agenda that the Second Amendment “does not stop at one’s doorstep” and that there is an unlimited right to carry handguns in public. So far, they are shooting blanks.

Read the full article and comment at
The Huffington Post.

[Red Steel]

New York can require applicants for concealed-carry gun license to articulate a need for self-protection distinguishable

The NY applicants says on applications that unknown assailant(s) have made attempts to mug and put selves in jeopardy. NY is now in the negative position to prove applicants are wrong.

Better: NY passes a law that says shall issue.

[PistolPaknMama]

But the thrilled-bent youngsters, age 18 to 21, are old enough to go to war WITH GUNS. Kids...we’re talking about kids, right?

[Sgt_Schultze]

Now that we have states which will be legally sanctioning gay marriages, those unions will have to be respected even in states which do not administer homo unions. Once that is inevitably litigated, there is really no reason a licensed right-to-carry citizen of, say Texas, shouldn’t move to New York and demand similar reciprocity.

[DTogo]

“The present ban appears consistent with a longstanding tradition of age- and safety-based restrictions on the ability to access arms,” said the court. Thus Congress has and can restrict the ability of minors under 21, who are “relatively immature,” to purchase guns without the Second Amendment even kicking in.

The criminal defense attorney of any "relatively immature" individual between 18 and 21 should use this case to argue his/her client cannot be tried as an adult.

You're either an adult with all the Rights and responsibilities that come with it under the Constitution, or you are a juvenile. IMHO (not a lawyer nor play one on TV).

[Chode]

it says can not WILL require!!! it's still up to the judge

our local judge is an NRA Life Member and still issues CW permits

[HiTech RedNeck]

Local elections matter.

[HiTech RedNeck]

The Huffington Puffers are more than eager to bow down to any court ruling — unless it goes against them. And these haven’t hit the highest appellate level possible either. B.S. should be called on their willfully cynical game.

[Chode]

damn straight...

i was standing on my front porch talking to a friend while screwing down an EOTech on my SOCOM when a woman walked up with a clipboard and ask me if i'd sign a petition for him to run for judge, i said "sure, i went to school with him" she put the clipboard on the rifle and i signed it

she was more surprised that i went to school with him than she was at me holding a rifle, in fact, she never batted an eye, she simply smiled, said thank you, and left...

i guess that's part of the reason i live here

[ThunderSleeps]

The court is just wrong. I'm not even a lawyer and I can see this. I'm embarrassed for the judge that handed down this ruling - like showing up to a packed court naked. Your foolishness is on display for everyone to see.

What part of fundamental, inalienable right do they not get? The right to defend ones self is perhaps the most basic one there is - it allows us to (try to) ensure our continued existence. The right to keep and bear arms as a means of doing that is so fundamental the Founding Fathers of our Country enshrined it in the 2nd Amendment. Ok, not the first thing, but the second out of ten. What they recognized is that the right to self defense is inalienable, and firearms are so important to this that they wanted a guarantee that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the government.

That is a subtle but important distinction that would-be gun grabbers gloss over. The 2nd Amendment does not give nor grant us any rights. What is given/granted can be taken away. What the 2nd Amendment states is that the government shall not infringe on that fundamental right.

Consider the 1st Amendment, loved, used, and abused by so-called artists to shock and offend. (personally I think when you have to go for shock value, your "art" has no other intrinsic value and you're a poor excuse for an artist) But consider if the 1st Amendment was attacked by the courts and would-be "speech-grabbers" like the 2nd Amendment is:

• I'm sorry, you need a class 1 license for an email account, a class 2 license for facebook, and a class 3 federal speech license to run your own blog.
• You can carry that diary/journal openly, but you're going to get a lot of attention. If you want to conceal it in a backpack you're going to have to get a permit for it.
• You can't talk in public to strangers when intoxicated. (that one might actually be a good idea)
• By ordinance, no talking in public within the city limits.
• Illiteracy now! People don't spread bad ideas, books do!
• Look, you don't need "cop-killer" words, no one needs words over three syllables.
• All your sentences have to be limited to low capacity. No more than 10 words each. No conjunctions.
• No whispering. Speech "suppressors" are dangerous, you can hide illicit speech that way.
• No hate words, no "assault speech." (actually political correctness comes pretty close to this now)
• Sorry, there is a three day waiting period to be licensed to use that adverb.

Ridiculous right? And don't even get me started on religion side of the 1st Amendment. So why is it that people acquiesce to these attacks on the 2nd Amendment? I guarantee you that without the 2nd Amendment, we would not have the others either for very long.

[SkyDancer]

And still can’t get a beer until they’re over 21, even on base.

[G Larry]

Choose your battles wisely.

I’m not too thrilled with 18 yr. olds drinking watered down beer.

Mostly because I remember when I did.

I enlisted at 17, during Nam, so, no lectures necessary, regarding “if/then”.

[DBeers]

But the thrilled-bent youngsters, age 18 to 21, are old enough to go to war WITH GUNS. Kids...we’re talking about kids, right?

--and they vote -far too much for leftists...

[Gene Eric]

>> Militant gun advocates and firearms industry lobbies will be surprised to learn ...

Imagine that. Militant gun advocates can actually learn.

What a jackass.

[CottShop]

well now here’s an unbiased report- “Militant gun advocates”? lol

[[Militant gun advocates and firearms industry lobbies will be surprised to learn that there are indeed limits on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and that there is no fundamental right to carry handguns in public.]]

Really, and just where are those limits again? No fundamental right to carry in public? Really,? And where is the prohibition against carrying in public again? Oh that’s right, there is NONE!

[CottShop]

[[New York can require applicants for concealed-carry gun license to articulate a need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community,]]

Hmmmm- “Your honor, I beleive that beign shot at 10 times i nthe last month makes me more eligible than someone who’s only been shot at 7 times- I beleive that witnessign 15 muggings in my neighborhood makes me more eiligible than someone hwo has only witnessed 14”

Cripes- EVERYONE has a RIGHT to protect themselves agaisnt deadly force by usign deadly force- and everyoen has a RIGHT to carry preventative measures to ensure that we remain protected agaisnt ANY potential future threat- Militant anti-gun advocates MUST prove that ordinary citizens do not have a right to self protection- and so far they can NOT prove that- all they can do is claim that all we have to do is call a policeman and that police are the only folks allowed to carry guns-

Thios needs to be settled in the supreme court once and for all- do we have a right to defend ourselves agaisnt terror and threat to our lives or not?

[TigersEye]

He’s not as smart as his brother Jethro.

[CottShop]

[[Your foolishness is on display for everyone to see.]]

That didn’t stop john roberts of hte supreme court- He shirked his oath before God and man and issued a ruling that violated our rights, and gave our dear leader to any danm thing he wants now under the false pretense that ‘the supreme court is not in business to protect citizens agaisnt bad choices’ Really? Because I was under the impressio n that the supreme court was our last and only hope of protection against a rogue goernment that tramples our rights- and now apparently that is the end of it

[[The right to defend ones self is perhaps the most basic one there is]]

They KNOW that but are hell bent on takign that right away from us- if they can’t take it away directly, they take it away indirectly by making it nearly impossible to obtain a gun or own certain guns- They falsely claim that that right was only for militias

[[What the 2nd Amendment states is that the government shall not infringe on that fundamental right.]]

Again, their FALSE claim is that that fundamental right is only for militias=- despite the constitution neve4r mentioning that it is only for militias- the ,left has been desperately tryign to make the claim stick, but they have no evidence that that is what the constitution says- they can’t even prove that we don’t have a fundamental right and that our government- whether state OR federal, can NOT infringe on that right.

I don’t know how this hasn’t been settledi nthe supreme court yet- the anitgunners have NO proof that the consitution was talkign only abotu militias-

[superloser]

Wouldn't a nice antidote to the "Militia" argument simply be to say that anyone can be called up at any time for Militia duty and because it is a Militia -- they are REQUIRED to provide their OWN FIREARM to serve?

I'd love to see a Judge nod in the affirmative on that one. It would kill that argument permanently and strengthen 2A beyond the ability to chip away at it.

[SECURE AMERICA]

Militant gun advocates and firearms industry lobbies will be surprised to learn that there are indeed limits on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and that there is no fundamental right to carry handguns in public

Not nearly as surpirsied as the men that wrote the Constituion would be!