- Status
I have an idea, why don't we revert back to what our Founding Fathers sacrificed their lives, family, & fortunes to give to us....the Constitution!! Read the 2nd Amendment, it's very simple & straightforward. Why desecrate it with laws that gnaw away at its intention? Why try to legislate how I should or should not carry my tool of choice to protect me and my family? I don't care if you don't like open carry, it's not your choice or place to tell me how to carry......I will do what is best for me as long as I do not harm you or others. That is liberty and freedom. Why not restore it? Or has everyone now got a streak of liberalism running thru'em trying to tell everyone else what is best for there own good? I'll tell you what, you carry open, you carry concealed, or don't carry at all...I don't care...just don't try to tell me how to carry for my own good.
Loss of your 2nd Amendment Rights just because the wind blew up your shirt or a "subjective" outline is scene by a gun grabber is absolutely asinine!
Loss of your 2nd Amendment Rights just because the wind blew up your shirt or a "subjective" outline is scene by a gun grabber is absolutely asinine!
But according to the Supreme Court, carrying a firearm upon oneself for personal defense is not a right granted by the Second Amendment.
Presently, the only two options are legislation and litigation.
VM,was that a ruling or definition they made on the words "right to bear"? and the reason i ask is because the word "bear" means - " have on one's person"...
Rights are non-negotiable. The Constitution confers the rights given to us by God. They're called unalienable rights.
From Heller:
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and in whatever purpose. . . . Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
...and in the associated footnote (#26) in Heller...
"We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive."
This was later reiterated in the plurality opinion in McDonald:
"It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not 'a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.'"
And in United States v. Skoien (7th Circuit, 2010):
"The language we have quoted warns readers not to treat Heller as containing broader holdings than the Court set out to establish: that the Second Amendment creates individual rights, one of which is keeping operable handguns at home for selfdefense. What other entitlements the Second Amendment creates, and what regulations legislatures may establish, were left open."
And in the unmarked firearms case United States v. Marzzarella (3rd Circuit, 2010):
"...because § 922(k) is designed to regulate the commercial sale of firearms and to prevent possession by a class of presumptively dangerous individuals, it is analogous to several longstanding limitations on the right to bear arms identified as presumptively valid in Heller."
With the 4-1-4 ruling, we really needed a case or two to come up, preferably after some of the less ballsy "conservative" Justices were gone, that would rely upon Justice Clarence Thomas' concurring opinion that the Privileges or Immunities Clause was the appropriate path for incorporation against the states as controlling. In my opinion, they shirked their duty as Supreme Court Justices by admitting that Slaughter-House is a flawed precedent that should be revisited, and then chose to not revisit Slaughter-House and apply that admittedly flawed precedent. However, the cases that are coming up through the system, including Nordyke v. King, are relying upon the plurality's opinion of Due Process.
In my opinion, anyone who considers Heller and McDonald as "wins" for the Second Amendment should really rethink what position they are taking before they say "shall not be infringed."
You still have to get the courts to agree. At this point, the Supreme Court is all about expanding federal power, whether inline with conservative or liberal ideals.
do you have a business? if so do you have a "no gun sign" on it?Originally Posted by loudshirt
Funny how some people want more property owners rights but trample on other property owners rights by ignoring private businesses that have gunbuster signs.
And him owning his own business is relevant HOW?
- Status
Similar threads
