High court to look at ban on handguns

McClatchy-Tribune ^ | Nov. 9, 2007, 12:18AM | MICHAEL DOYLE

[Dead Corpse]

Thank you.

It was you trying to connect Nunn to the argument over forbidding concealed carry to the militia. If it doesn't hold water as an argument.... don't use it.

[Dead Corpse]

We also note that at least three current members (and one former member) of the Supreme Court have read "bear Arms" in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering: "Surely a most familiar meaning [of 'carries a firearm'] is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment ('keepand bear Arms') and Black's Law Dictionary . . . indicate: 'wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person." Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting, joined by Rehnquist, C.J., Scalia, J.,and Souter, J.) (emphasis in original). Based on the foregoing, we think the operative clause includes a private meaning for"bear Arms."

[Mojave]

It was you trying to connect Nunn to the argument over forbidding concealed carry to the militia.

False.

BTW, since the other one fled I'll try you.

Are the Crips and the Bloods militias?

[Mojave]

That says absolutely nothing about "BoR protected Right was ruled being off limits to both the Feds and the States."

Since you bluff everytime, I always know that it's safe to call your hand.

[Dead Corpse]

Mojave 1: Nunn held that 2nd Amendment protections don't apply to concealed weapons.

Me: Only in regards to the active militia could this be true.

Mojave 2: False

Whatever...

Are the Crips and the Bloods militias?

No. Nor are the Gambini's or the BATFE. All four are criminal organizations whose main intent it to act outside of legitamate restrictions and laws.

[Dead Corpse]

Argue about it with Ginsberg... http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1654.ZD.html

[Mojave]

BATFE. All four are criminal organizations whose main intent it to act outside of legitamate restrictions and laws.

Cite, please.

[Mojave]

Argue about it with Ginsberg...

You faked the "quotation", not her.

[robertpaulsen]

That case was Muscarello v. United States and concerned the language of 18 USC section 924(c)(1) -- a person who "uses or carries a firearm" -- and had nothing to do with the second amendment -- a right "to keep and bear arms". One has nothing to do with the other.

[tacticalogic]

I’m not interested in helping you convince people that they need to let the politicians and bureaucrats take away their right to keep and bear arms for their own good. Your time in the beltway is showing.

[Mojave]

You’re too obsessed with your dream of centralized government to dare say who you believe is in the militia. No surprise there.

[tacticalogic]

No.

[publiusF27]

if Sarah Brady and her clowns can cause doubt by saying, "You passed those laws because you thought "to bear arms" in the Florida State Constitution included concealed carry

Invalid premise. Just because they passed a CWP law does not mean that they think it was a protected right, it just means that they think it is permissible and does not conflict with the protected right.

And if they're solid, you're golden.

Solid enough for me, I guess. I don't mind relying on the legislature for things like concealed carry, which I see as outside the 2A anyway. But if they DID do something which I thought infringed on my right to keep and bear arms, and state courts decided I was wrong, it would be nice to be able to go to federal court and assert my 2A rights, something I can't do now, unless they take away my pointed stick.

[publiusF27]

Do you imagine every state has identical gun laws?

I thought it was obvious from the topic of this thread and the content of my post that I was talking about the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution, not state laws.

[tacticalogic]

Just to clarify, "No." means "No, I'm not going to play your game. No, I'm not going to entertain your loaded questsions. No, I'm not going to help you start a flame war."

What I will do is undermine, interfere with, frustrate and subvert any attempt to convince people that the public just can't be trusted with guns and we need to give up the right to keep and bear arms for our own good, by you or anyone else, at every opportunity.

[Mojave]

I thought it was obvious from the topic of this thread and the content of my post that I was talking about the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution, not state laws.

Second sentence in the article:

"Behind closed doors, the nine justices will consider taking a case that challenges the District of Columbia's stringent handgun ban. Their ultimate decision will shape how far other cities and states can go with their own gun restrictions."

[Mojave]

No, I'm not going to entertain your loaded questsions.

It's not loaded.

Are Crips and Bloods militia?

[tacticalogic]

It is loaded, and I’m not going to waste time on it. The fact that you’re so intent on getting me to is all the reason I need not to.

[publiusF27]

Yes, the SC decision might affect state and local laws, but it's a federal court decision on part of the US Constitution.

I said this:

"We’re already subject to a collectivist interpretation of the 2A, unless we live in the DC District or the 5th Circuit. That means that the 2A does exactly nothing for an individual like me. How is that going to get worse?"

And I'm still waiting for an answer. Pointing out that cities and states have their own gun laws is unrelated. The thread, and my post, are about the 2nd amendment and how it is interpreted. My point is, the 2A doesn't do anything for me at the moment, and I don't see how it can do less than nothing.

I think that by winning in the DC District Court, gun owners are better off no matter what happens next. If the Supreme Court does not hear the case, the District where federal gun laws can be challenged is now more gun friendly, not to mention the fact that residents of DC will be able to keep a functional firearm around the house. If they hear the case and render a decision saying the 2nd amendment protects an individual right, I think that's pretty obviously good for gun owners. If they hear the case and ratify the current collectivist interpretation of the 2A, things don't change unless you live in the 5th Circuit or the DC District.

Having the Court take the case and reverse the DC Circuit Court judgement would be the worst possible outcome, and you don't have to take my word for it. I know you like to ask for a cite, so here's the amicus brief submitted by the states of New York, Hawaii, Illinois, & Maryland. That's what they want to see happen, so that's what I want to see NOT happen.

[publiusF27]

Are Crips and Bloods militia?

Am I?