This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
If this falls, it’s over.....................
If they say no, then that means, “A well-regulated militia” was supposed to remain inside their own homes at all times.
My Ass, Bob.
Sorry, SCOTUS will not decide this issue. We the People will
Caetano v Massachusetts,decided 9-0 (while Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg was serving),gives me hope on this one. The fact that SCOTUS chose to allow the theft of a Presidential election doesn’t.
They will render some kind of Opinion, but the Rights will remain.
If the right didn’t extend beyond your doorstep I would not be typing this from the Pacific Coast.
The settlers were not preceded by armed patrol cars clearing the way. They protected themselves, and the Cavalry only showed up later, if at all.
A bunch of foreigners who have no ancestors that were American are the people planning to decide this. Would be nice if they read up on the history. Us Americans? We heard it from our fathers, and lived it.
SCOTUS is totally controlled by Roberts
Roberts is totally controlled by the Bushes, globalist oligarchs and Wray and Merrick.
When Heller was decided, I was here on these pages saying that the right to keep and bear arms will be restricted to your home. The preparation for such a limitation was staged in Heller.
After that, the left will try to limit the type of firearm you are allowed to keep in your home.
This court of Tooth-less tigers who would not stop the most obvious theft of an election by the radical left...can do little to harm the US Constitution’s Second Amendment as they have already surrendered those rights.
I’m “Homeless”
My Home is the Universe.
This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
SCOTUS in the 1800s had no problem with it.
You really need to read the 1982 Senate report on the 2nd Amendment. I have a paper copy.
https://guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html
“The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.”
STATE Courts...
19th century cases
16. * Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878).
“If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the (p.17)penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”
17. * Jennings v. State, 5 Tex. Crim. App. 298, at 300-01 (1878).
“We believe that portion of the act which provides that, in case of conviction, the defendant shall forfeit to the county the weapon or weapons so found on or about his person is not within the scope of legislative authority. * * * One of his most sacred rights is that of having arms for his own defence and that of the State. This right is one of the surest safeguards of liberty and self-preservation.”
18. * Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8, at 17 (1871).
“The passage from Story (Joseph Story: Comments on the Constitution) shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights.”
19. * Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846).
“’The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.”
And the SCOTUS case that led to the Civil War..
Are Negros citizens...Dred Scott
“It would give to persons of the negro race, who are recognized as citizens in any one state of the Union, the right to enter every other state, whenever they pleased.... and it would give them full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to KEEP AND CARRY ARMS wherever they went.”
Based on its past decisions, SCOTUS tends to like starting civil wars ...
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.