Posted on 04/28/2021 7:46:05 AM PDT by Kaslin
While it may seem obvious that the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" extends beyond the home, federal courts have been debating that question for years. This week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that could finally settle the issue, which the petitioners call "perhaps the single most important unresolved Second Amendment question."
The case involves a New York law that requires applicants for handgun carry licenses to show "proper cause," which according to state courts means more than a "generalized desire" to "protect one's person and property." Applicants must "demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community," which in practice means that ordinary New Yorkers have no right to armed self-defense once they leave their homes.
The vast majority of states are less demanding, typically requiring that people who want to carry concealed handguns meet a shortlist of objective criteria. But several states have laws like New York's, enforcing subjective standards such as "good cause" (California), "proper purpose" (Massachusetts), "justifiable need" (New Jersey), "good and substantial reason" (Maryland), or a special "reason to fear injury" (Hawaii).
In the case that the Supreme Court will hear this term, the New York State Pistol & Rifle Association, joined by two New Yorkers who unsuccessfully applied for carry licenses in Rensselaer County, argues that such policies transform a "right of the people" into a privilege enjoyed only by the favored few. "A law that flatly prohibits ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying a handgun for self-defense outside the home cannot be reconciled with the Court's affirmation of the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation," the petitioners say.
They are referring to the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, which overturned a local ban on handguns. While that decision focused on the right to "use arms in defense of hearth and home," it more generally recognized "the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."
The possibility of being confronted by violent criminals, of course, exists in public as well as private. "Like the threats that might precipitate a need to act in self-defense," the petitioners say, the right to bear arms "necessarily extends beyond the four walls of one's home."
Two other aspects of Heller reinforce that argument. The Court said its decision did not "cast doubt" on "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings," a caveat that would have been unnecessary if the right to armed self-defense were limited to the home, and it described bans on the open carrying of pistols that were overturned by state supreme courts in the 19th century as "severe restriction(s)."
Two federal appeals courts, the 7th Circuit and the D.C. Circuit, have agreed that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public. But the 2nd Circuit, which rejected this lawsuit, concluded that New York's regulations are constitutional, and four other appeals courts -- the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 9th circuits -- have upheld similar policies in other states.
They are referring to the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, which overturned a local ban on handguns. While that decision focused on the right to "use arms in defense of hearth and home," it more generally recognized "the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."
The possibility of being confronted by violent criminals, of course, exists in public as well as private. "Like the threats that might precipitate a need to act in self-defense," the petitioners say, the right to bear arms "necessarily extends beyond the four walls of one's home."
Two other aspects of Heller reinforce that argument. The Court said its decision did not "cast doubt" on "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings," a caveat that would have been unnecessary if the right to armed self-defense were limited to the home, and it described bans on the open carrying of pistols that were overturned by state supreme courts in the 19th century as "severe restriction(s)."
Two federal appeals courts, the 7th Circuit and the D.C. Circuit, have agreed that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public. But the 2nd Circuit, which rejected this lawsuit, concluded that New York's regulations are constitutional, and four other appeals courts -- the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 9th circuits -- have upheld similar policies in other states.
This isn’t then it is now. The edge is very close
"...Will conservatives do a Wyatt Earp and tell the FBI Johnny Behans..."
It’s not over. Western ingenuity becomes quiet at times, but it will not be extinguished.
I know, you are right
I’m just surprised the precedent hasn’t been raised
Thanks for the Ping Blue Jay.
As I see it, right now the ONLY REASON that most of the US has not descended into a living hell run by street gangs is because our side is ARMED. Take away our weapons, and we’ll have as much chance against them as the freedom fighters in Hong Kong or the Weegars in Western China (although they are terrorists).
And the reason we’re still armed is due to our LAWS, laws that allow us to buy guns, go to the range, carry them (in most places), and defend ourselves with them. Once those laws are gone, our guns turn radioactive. Sure they’ll still hold bullets and kill bad guys, but they’ll also throw us in jail, if we’re caught with them. They will look a lot different to us, once we’re the ones getting 10 to 20 years for defending ourselves, while our attackers get off scott-free.
And that’s before ‘they’ even start putting the squeeze on us. We ‘think’ we’re ready for them. But looking at the posts here, we clearly ARE NOT READY. Very often you’ll see someone here saying that they’ll say they lost their guns in a ‘boating accident’. Cute, but what happens when it goes like this:
FBI: We have an FFL document showing that you purchased a Glock 19, Serial Number 123XYZ on May 17, 2017. Why haven’t you registered it?
YAHOO: Oh, (snicker), I lost it in a boating accident, so it’s gone.
FBI: Did you report it missing?
YAHOO: No, that’s not required here in Texas.
FBI: Ok, but in lieu of registering the gun, you need to fill out a Form 578D declaring that the gun is missing, with the understanding that should you recover the gun, you WILL register it.
That’s the hook. If the gun ever shows up in your possession or in the possession of someone close to you, you have a lot of explaining to do (along with a lot of jail time), if the additional paperwork has not been completed (i.e., registration).
Bottom line is that it is THE LAWS and THE JUDGES who interpret those laws who protect us. Without them, we’re sitting ducks, with the government looking for one slip-up (maybe you had that gun on your table when a policeman come to your door after you, or your wife, reported a crime, for example). There are a lot of Yahoos here...but the vast majority will fold, once they figure out how powerless they are against a government that hates them, and now has the law on their side to PUNISH them.
And that is why our side must NEVER let them get that power over us...and if it means electing RINOs (yet again) over Democrats, then so be it. And if people on our side can’t get that through their sick heads, then they deserve EXACTLY what’s in store for them, and it won’t be pretty.
The states and all levels of government were always bound by the Bill of Rights. That’s what they were for in spite of the desires of the various kinds of proponents of slavery.
The Fourteenth Amendment only further confirmed what was obvious enough before it.
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tenche Coxe (introduction to his discussion, and support, of the 2nd Amend) "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution" Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 18 June 1789, pg.2
"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." - Andrew Fletcher (1655-1716), quoted by 18th century political philosopher James Burgh (1714-1775), Political Disquisitions: Or, an Inquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses, 1774-1775 "Whenever, therefore, the profession of arms becomes a distinct order in the state . . . the end of the social compact is defeated . . . . No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and the soldier in those destined for the defence of the state . . . . Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen."- Richard Henry Lee, Senator First Congress
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." - Pennsulvania Patriot Thomas Paine, Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775
"The right of citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurption and arbitraty power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." - Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries On The Constitution, 1883
... to prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm ... is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege. - Georgia case of Nunn v. State, from 1846.
Lastly... for some of us... Weapons are literally part of our ancestors religion:
Havamal 38
A wayfarer should not walk unarmed,
But have his weapons to hand:
He knows not when he may need a spear,
Or what menace meet on the road.
A peaceful solution
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, as long as they stay in their houses.
"The states and all levels of government were always bound by the Bill of Rights.
The Fourteenth Amendment only further confirmed what was obvious enough before it."
With all due respect familyop, that’s not correct.
But you’re off the hook because schools probably don’t spend enough time teaching the history of the Constitution.
The congressional record indicates that the first significant case where the Supreme Court clarified that the BoR originally didn’t apply to the states is the eminent domain case of Barron v. Baltimore (Barron).
“The amendments [to the Constitution] contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.”—Justice John Marshall quoted in Congressional Globe, 1871. (See near the bottom of the top half of first column.)
"The Court ruled that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the state governments, establishing a precedent until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” —Concerning Barron v. Baltimore, 1833.
In the Barron case, John Barron wanted 5th Amendment compensation for his waterfront business property that the City of Baltimore indirectly damaged, the Court clarifying the limits of the BoR at that time.
Free men don’t need a cabal of robed loyalists to tell us what plain English means.
-PJ
“Am I the only one who has a strong sense of foreboding about this?”
Not at all. FR is overly infested with doddering old goats who run around this website screaming like little girls that we’re doooomed!
I’m not worried at all. I will not comply, plus...there are millions of gun owners who won’t. I’ll continue to carry.
"...there are millions of gunowners who won't..."
The SCROTUMS (Supreme Court, Rulers Of These United Metrosexual States)
decide that "the state can force you to only have your guns at home"
...that means that:
The Founding Fathers thought that "a well-regulated militia" was one, that was never allowed to leave the house.
Good luck Lexington and Concord-ing with *THAT*.
What about the homeless?
How about people living in their car or camper? What if they move their car?
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.