That Second Amendment Does Not Protect Carrying (Concealed or Not) of Guns Outside th

[Dave70968]

Just because 9 intellectual elites who over think everything and have no love for rocking an established boat say it does not make it right. It just makes it law and law, justice and right are quite often not close to being the same.

History teaches us that when the disconnect between law, justice and right gets too broad that people will eventualy take action to eliminate the disconnect.

Seven elites, not nine. It was the Maryland Court of Appeals, not the Supreme Court of the United States.

Yes, it sounds like pedantry, but the distinction is an important one: this ruling means nothing outside Maryland's borders.

 

[Werewolf]

Seven elites, not nine. It was the Maryland Court of Appeals, not the Supreme Court of the United States.

Yes, it sounds like pedantry, but the distinction is an important one: this ruling means nothing outside Maryland's borders.

'

Heller was a SCOTUS decision and essentially only affirmed the right to keep and bear arms in one's home for self defense. They also ruled that banning a firearm in common use was not constitutional. They talked about a lot of other stuff and ended it with that stuff is for other courts to decide.

 

[vvvvvvv]

Seven elites, not nine. It was the Maryland Court of Appeals, not the Supreme Court of the United States.

Yes, it sounds like pedantry, but the distinction is an important one: this ruling means nothing outside Maryland's borders.

However, it is based on Heller as incorporated through McDonald, which were both substantial losses in the fight for our Second Amendment protected Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

 

[mons meg]

I thought the SCOTUS didn't address so much the question of "bearing" arms in public, since the case was originally about keeping arms in the home.

 

[vvvvvvv]

I thought the SCOTUS didn't address so much the question of "bearing" arms in public, since the case was originally about keeping arms in the home.

They did not address the question directly, but rather indirectly by stating that all longstanding prohibitions, other than a prohibition on possessing a firearm within your home for self defense, are presumptively Constitutional.

Of course, this same SCOTUS said that [paraphrased] "Slaughter-House is a flawed precedent and should be revisited, but we don't want to deal with that so we'll use it as-is anyway."

 

[mons meg]

I guess my point was that they left the question open, narrowly deciding that the absolute prohibition of handguns in the home was unconstitutional, but that other prohibitions MIGHT be presumed constitutional. then, we went to McDonald, etc. etc.