Supreme Court Should Reject a Law That Prevents Ordinary People From Carrying Guns for Self-Defense

Townhall.com ^ | November 10, 2021 | Jacob Sullum

[BipolarBob]

Only "extraordinary" people should have firearms. You know, actors. Because they are so knowledgeable about firearms and safety.
/s

[Gay State Conservative]

Until a US citizen proves him/herself to be a dangerous person (by means of a criminal conviction) there should be few,if any,restrictions on the right to keep,and bear,arms.

[Yo-Yo]

I was hoping for a Constitutional Carry ruling, with no need for any licensing from the State, but that's off the table.

The next battles will be over the 'may issue' states greatly increasing their training and storage requirements in response to a "shall issue" ruling, and to get nationwide reciprocity of licenses issued by other states.

[Hugh the Scot]

Until a US citizen proves him/herself to be dangerous (by means of a FR post) there should be few, if any, restrictions on freedom of speech...

Tell me why you believe that a person convicted of a “crime” should not have their rights fully and completely restored after serving their sentence?
Is there a particular crime that would be needed in order to qualify under your rules?

I posit that a released prisoner who is too dangerous to have their right to keep and bear arms fully restored, should not be released at all, and that those who are safe to release into society are, by that definition, safe enough to exercise the same rights that you and I do.

Just my opinion, of course.

[Leaning Right]

I’d go a step further. Once a felon has completed his entire sentence (including any parole), I’d restore all of his rights. The right to vote, the right to bear arms, etc.

But what about a guy who is violent to the point of being criminally insane? Give that guy many, many years on parole after he is released.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

In 1857 the SCOTUS wrote that one of the rights of a US CITIZEN was to “keep and carry arms wherever they went!”

Dred Scott VS Sandford

What the SCOTUS thought about gun control in the pre Civil War era.
“It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished;

and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs,
and to KEEP AND CARRY ARMS wherever they went.”

Paragraph 77 in the link below.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZO.html

[Gay State Conservative]

Are there any people tat you can think of who should be denied access to firearms...either temporarily or permanently?

[Gay State Conservative]

Nope,can't agree.A temporary ban could be put into place...for certain illnesses,for example. But there *are* people who are fundamentally evil. *They* should be denied access for life...once it can be reasonably established that he/she is,in fact,evil.And certain types of criminal convictions are a good barometer of evilness.

[Leaning Right]

> But there *are* people who are fundamentally evil. <

Yep. Under my plan, after their release such folks would be on parole for a long time (maybe for life). And folks on parole would not be eligible to keep and bear arms.

But we all know that if you want to get a gun, you’re going to get a gun. No law will stop you. Just like Prohibition never stopped anyone who really wanted a shot of whiskey.

[curious7]

Such criminals should be hanged. That solves the problem.
We used to do that to violent offenders. As the practice declined, society declined as well.

[RatRipper]

If we truly had no right to bear arms, why didn’t the founding Fathers confiscate all of the guns immediately after the Bill of Rights were passed????????

[Gay State Conservative]

It's true that gun laws don't stop criminals from getting them.But at least they give us a reason to lock up an individual who's already proven him/herself to be fundamentally evil.

And yes,these people could be put on parole for life...it would be expensive but it might be a good idea.

[BipolarBob]

Alec Baldwin.

[Dead Corpse]

Shall not be infringed.
Keep and bear.
Privileges and immunities.
Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

This isn’t hard to understand.

[DoughtyOne]

Yeah, no way!

What the hell is the Second Amendment there for, if you are
not allowed to have a gun with you when you need it most.

Sure you’re within the law, but you wind up dead right.

Yeah, no way!

[Elsie]

Sounds right to me.

Do convicted drunk drivers ever get the ‘right’ to drive again?

[Elsie]

Uh; yes.

[Elsie]

I, by definition, am evil.

[Elsie]

If we truly had no right to bear arms, why didn’t the founding Fathers confiscate all of the guns immediately after the Bill of Rights were passed????????

Same as now: A gun behind every blade of grass.