Posted on 04/28/2021 7:46:05 AM PDT by Kaslin
The general rationale of Heller is that a "long standing" condition becomes constitutional. That sleight of hand was employed to preserve the GCA of 1968 and similar federal restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.
I agree with you - that same rationale can be used to uphold long-standing limitations on issuance of "bear outside of the home" conditions. Just hold that non-uniformity in this regard is to be expected, and the question is a political one, not a matter of personal right that the courts will recognize.
The courts are hostile to the right to keep and bear arms. They would not take this case if the intention was to allow more people to bear arms in public. Several circuis have already weight in, that way. SCOTUS will choose among them for the rationale. Decision is made before the case is heard.
2A..................
Jimmy two-times wrote this? “Gotta get the papers, get the papers.”
And I’d prefer “affirm” instead of “decide.” Of course, that presupposes the Wise Latina understands the 18th Century meaning of “well regulated.”
Seems a little strange to confine well trained militias in their houses.
Am I the only one who has a strong sense of foreboding about this?
It IS obvious that the Constitutional right to “keep and bear arms” extends beyond the home. The right to self-defense predates government itself. The issue isn’t “unresolved”.
What federal courts have been debating for years is whether/how to illegally take away this right.
[[This week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that could finally settle the issue, ]]
They have already ‘settled the issue’ several times I believe as the sc has ruled for gun owners and against draconian state laws that tried to forbid it.
How many times are they gonna ‘finally settle it’?
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Questions like the one now being asked about the 2nd Amendment (2A) suggest that judges think that people no longer have the voting power to fire federal or state lawmakers who try to take away our 2A protections imo.
Interestingly, patriots are reminded that the early states had decided that Bill of Right (BoR) limitations on government powers did not apply to the states. The states had obligated only the federal government to respect BoR protections.
So before the 14th Amendment (14A) was ratified, the states technically could have made laws like the NY restrictive gun law being questioned imo.
H O W E V E R…
Patriots are reminded that the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, the main author of 14A, had included 2A when he read the BoR as main examples of constitutionally enumerated privileges and immunities that 14A applies to the states.
John Bingham, Congressional Globe. (See 2nd Amendment (Article II) about in middle of 2nd column.)
So citizens now have protection against abridgment of their BoR protections, including 2A, from abridgment by the states.
In fact, in stark contrast to Biden's unconstitutional (imo) peacetime restrictive gun control policies, 14A expressly gives Congress the power to strengthen constitutionally enumerated protections, including 2A, from abridgment by the states.
Excerpted from the 14th Amendment:
"Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
H O W E V E R…
Regarding the idea of citizens no longer having voting powers, evidenced by alleged desperate Democratic vote-counting fraud in the 2020 elections, we can expect the very corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Congress to not lift a finger exercise its 14A power to stop state actors from abridging constitutionally enumerated protections.
The remedy for federal and state lawmakers and judges that want to take away our 2A protections…
Unless the judicial system “express lanes” its weakening of 2A, patriots need to primary (2022) federal and state candidates for lawmaker who don't promise to remove anti-2A judges from the bench.
Finally, on a broader issue concerning corrupt federal government, please consider this. Patriots need to work with federal and state lawmakers to require judges and law enforcement officials to do the following when someone is accused of violating a federal law.
Judges and law-enforcement officials need to inform the accused of the constitutional clause(s) that arguably justifies the allegedly broken law for further scrutiny of the constitutionality of that law, especially where unconstitutional federal peacetime gun control laws are concerned imo.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Did Mr. Heller ever get a CC permit?
I’ve heard the answer to that is “No”. Why am I not surprised.
This is so ridiculously easy... Any where I have a legal right to be, my Rights come with me.
This simple premise could only be screwed up by someone who was educated far beyond their IQ...
Past due time to return that attitude in kind.
It was decided by many a century ago. The ban extended from eastern cities to the west where sheriffs most famously in Dodge City Kansas decreed that guns must be surrendered. You can’t carry a gun in my town said the sheriff
At the time I know of no constitutional challenge to the sheriffs. The19th century law enforcers turned a blind eye to the constitutional right to bear arms
Shall not be infringed, means shall not be infringed.
What good is *bearing* arms only within the confines of your own property or house? *bearing* means carrying around with you, and that would be out in public.
That is not what the Founding Fathers meant. They knew what they were dealing with, and intended for us to have guns for more than hunting.
Too many people ignore the fact that the Constitution is not the government giving us our rights, but rather the people restricting what the government can and can’t do that would have an influence on our private lives.
Now we have a situation where the government is giving itself more and more power over the lives of individual Americans.
It already was decided in the 1700s. It’s none of SCOTUS’ business.
This should be an easy question. Does any other right, recognized by the Bill of Rights, end when you walk out of your house and into a public space?
Do you loose the right to buy a bible or newspaper in public?
Does your right against self incrimination go away when you are on public property?
Does a citizens right to trial by jury end at the town square?
No? Then neither does your 2nd amendment rights.
Until the US Supreme Court incorporated the 2nd Amendment, via the 14th Amendment, into Constitutional restrictions on the States, the States were not bound by the 2nd Amendment.
During the California Gold Rush of 1849, thousands of New York State men went to California. They were all armed with their own pistols, some manufactured by local gunsmith from scratch. Everyone was armed. Some of these men later served in the Union Army with their own sidearms. The steward boys 8 years old and up on the steamboat carrying the NYorkers up the Mississippi were armed with their own pistols. Cf. Diary of Col. Hammond, Hammond’s Morgan Chargers from Crown Point NY, under Custer at Appomatox.
If it doesn’t extend outside of your home, you don’t have it.
That’s like saying you have the right to homosexual relationships, if you keep it in the closet.
One question: Do our 1A rights likewise extend beyond our doorstep?
Regards,
The left partisans in the streets ignore the law. The communist politicians ignore any law they want-sanctuary cities. The deep state traitorous goons ignore ANY law they want without consequences.
Will conservatives ignore a bad decision here? Will conservatives take being prosecuted when leftist and the government clearly are not prosecuted? Will conservatives do a Wyatt Earp and tell the FBI Johnny Behans “I don’t think I’ll let you arrest me today Behan”? Do we have to break the law to eventually get back to the rule of law? The rule of law is dead, it died in 2016, we just don’t realize or want to face reality.
If the left takes our firearms it really is over for freedom in this world for the foreseeable future. There is no USA coming to our rescue. Will conservatives finally say enough and break the law as our leftist counterparts in and out of government are now doing?
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.