First Circuit Court of Appeals Rule No Right to Bear Arms Outside the Home

Ammoland ^ | 2 November, 2018 | Dean Weingarten

[mjp]

So everyone else has been getting it wrong the past 231 years, but this 3 judge triad of retards have received the flame of knowledge from Mt. Olympus, and really nailed what the founders REALLY meant?

leftards think that they are the special elite with knowledge and insight gained by mystical methods. So, since they know what is best, they have the right and duty to tell the masses what to do.

[arrogantsob]

The level of stupidity, even on this site, is dismaying.

[gundog]

But,....but....the Second Amendment is about hunting, right? You can’t hunt in your home. /s

[lurk]

Limited to household carry?

Sounds just a bit like infringement.

[DoughtyOne]

Pretty much nails it...

[vigilence]

Makes sense (not), we’re never in any danger except when we’re in our homes. How can anybody seriously make that arguement let alone convince a panel of judges?

[metmom]

The plaintiffs say that the Massachusetts firearms licensing statute, as implemented in Boston and Brookline, violates the Second Amendment. The district court disagreed, and so do we. Mindful that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,”

Since it didn't put limits on it when it was written, then yes, it is unlimited.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

*Shall not be infringed* means, NO LIMITS.

[marktwain]

Limited to household carry? Sounds just a bit like infringement.

The entire tone of the opinion was: how much infringement can we justify, using cherry picked phrases from Heller and McDonald?

[eyeamok]

NOTHING prevents the lame duck Congress which is still controlled by the Republicans for Impeaching and Removing these Judges and passing a LAW cementing in stone the Right to Carry ANYWHERE!!

[marktwain]

Nothing except their political philosophy and contempt for the citizenry of the United States.

[Tenacious 1]

we hold that the challenged regime bears a substantial relationship to important governmental interests in promoting public safety and crime prevention without offending the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights

In other words, "Regardless of what the Constitution says."

[marktwain]

In other words, "Regardless of what the Constitution says."

Or to put it another way: Government power is not to be limited.

[FlingWingFlyer]

If these ***hole “judges” say your Second Amendment right ONLY apply in your house. Your First Amendment rights must only apply in your house also. We’ve got too many black-robed morons playing god in this country.

[frank ballenger]

Good.

I think Tucker Carlson and family and other conservatives will have to make sure they do the same.

Some people believe in that dusty old U S Constitution the libs are increasingly hinting about scrapping. Not a chance.

[frank ballenger]

No, how I read it doesn’t affect many lives. I only meant I believe we have citizen rights under the 2nd Amendment that should not be diminished and made ineffectual by various judges.

I read the article (link didn’t work but found it). Thanks. Very controversial. New law Oct.1. Is it supposed to stop the Parkland types or the Adam Lanza ones? Who makes the red flag protective order decision ?

[William Tell]

"... the mentally unstable are not guaranteed the right to bear arms."

I scored a perfect 100 on my last mental stability test. What minimum score is required to be guaranteed the right to bear arms?

[sickoflibs]

RE:” New law Oct.1. Is it supposed to stop the Parkland types or the Adam Lanza ones? Who makes the red flag protective order decision ?”

New Maryland law and unfortunately I live in Maryland.

Expect to see the Dem controlled House to be passing national laws like this one next year, no telling what the GOP Senate and Trump will do in response.

[arrogantsob]

You not be institutionalized and have not been for five years would be a place to start.

[William Tell]

"...a place to start."

The problem with the anti-gun crowd is not in finding a place to start. The problem is that they will never find a place to stop.

Whatever criteria one imposes on those who may be a risk, there will always be those who don't meet the criteria and yet commit the offenses. Additionally, a lot of people will be disarmed who, in fact, won't harm anyone.

Those who would limit the size of detachable magazines were satisfied for a while with 15 cartridges in New Jersey. We're down to 10 in Kalifornia. New York has decided that the magic number is 7.

There is a price we must be willing to pay to preserve our liberty. There is also a price we must be willing to pay if we are to continue eliminating morality and responsibility. It is perhaps unclear that those two issues can be disconnected.

[arrogantsob]

There have been gun control laws in the past in almost every state and many cities. Remember Wyatt Earp stopping the cowhands from carrying in Dodge City.

It should be considered that the Second amendment was not intended to apply to the states but only to the fedgov.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Militias were State institutions and were able to defend state interests against a tyrannical fedgov. The US military was tiny during the early days.

The individual right to keep and bear arms derived from the fact that every able-bodied man was considered to be part of the militia. (this is explicit in state constitutions, Illinois’ is.) I have no doubt that they did not consider the “...right of the People...” does not mean that every person retains that right when their behavior does not violate other laws or become a criminal or they are a danger to the public.