In The Home?

[Boofreakinyah]

DC vs Heller decision is in....Such as it is.

Heres the thing…

I live in the central valley of the people’s republic of california. Yes…I realize that california is supposed to be in Caps. I also realize that I have the free will to move and I have considered that option many times.

Here is my question. It seems that everyone, including the SCOTUS, is recognizing and continuously addressing the “Natural right to self defense”, yet nearly everything that is being debated as well as the SCOTUS majority opinion is that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms, “In the home”.

I am confused. Does this mean that the framers only wanted us to be able to defend ourselves from an out-of-control government as well as any time the indians, thieves or wild animals STOPPED BY THE HOUSE? I seriously DOUBT it.

I think the Heller decision was a victory, mainly for residents of DC who already own or want to own a revolver for self-protection within the home. How the decision will impact the rest of us at the state, county and city levels, remains to be seen. Chicago and SanFran may see a portion of their rights restored. Beyond that, I really don’t think much of anything will change. (At least here in PROC).

I understand that the SCOTUS was tasked with considering only the details of the case that was brought before them but I feel they should also apply common sense to the cases they hear. Is it common sense to think that the Framers would say “…shall not be infringed”, and then allow for individual states and cities to create laws that are completely random in their levels of infringement but ARE infringement none the less? Nearly every jurisdiction in the nation has a different set of laws relating to the keeping and bearing of arms and each jurisdiction thinks that its’ “regulations” are reasonable and necessary to public safety. DC actually believed that banning handguns within their borders was the best and only solution to a violent crime rate that predictably and drastically increased after their “solution” was passed.

The phrase, “May Issue” is the most blatant and widely used method of infringement in use today. “May Issue” is an open door for a jurisdiction to require a law abiding citizen to take training classes…(At his own expense), to submit to mental fitness tests…(Fees), submit fingerprints…(Fees), submit detailed personal information, submit to DOD and legal background checks, submit a “Good Cause” statement which is essentially a document in which you plead for your Constitutional right. Then more fees are collected. Nearly $500 altogether, (at least in my city.) After ALL of this, the permit is DENIED and the fees are forfeit.

MAY ISSUE = “WON’T issue but WILL keep your money”

IN THE HOME. This is the only place I am allowed to legally defend myself with a handgun, (according to my understanding after reading the entire text of the SCOTUS opinion on DC vs Heller). Here is my problem with that.

I am an executive security provider who supports the 2nd Amendment as it is written. Without going into detail, my employer is high-profile, has ongoing active threats and is a valid and verified soft-target for terrorist attack. As you can imagine, it’s difficult to do my job on a daily basis with the very real potential of an attack on my employer. I am highly trained and am a certified professional in my field. I began my training as a police officer while proudly serving my country in the United States Air Force, protecting the rights that we are so very carefully and systematically being denied. I took every required CCW training course. I paid nearly $500 in fees. The good cause statement included with my CCW application was nothing short of frightening…and all true. I have no history of mental illness and have never been arrested for anything, let alone a felony. I was DENIED, what I believe to be, my Constitutional right to a California CCW permit by my County Sheriff and there is nothing I can do. Even my right to appeal the decision was strategically squashed by letting me know that “I could appeal but the decision would more than likely stand”. California is a MAY issue state. The Sheriff didn’t issue because he didn’t have to.

IN THE HOME is where I spend only a small percentage of my time. Every day, I deal with a valid and everchanging level of personal and professional threat, that comes from different directions and for different reasons. At the end of my day, I travel through high crime areas at all hours of the day (depending upon when I was required). I return to my family to conduct the personal part of my life. My children, my wife and I are all subject to my employer’s personal and professional threat level. Everywhere I go, (OUTSIDE MY HOME), there is a very real possibility that an enemy of my employer or any person who sees a possible monitary benefit, will try and use me or my family as a tool in their attempt at reaching my employer.

OUTSIDE MY HOME is where I need the ability to protect myself and my family most. I really don’t think I am being unreasonable in my thinking. If I were a police officer who had a constant level of threat (on and off duty) I would be able to carry my firearm…on and off duty. I have had as much and in some cases more training than some police officers.

I have studied many books, articles and posts on line about this subject and there seems to be a pattern in the questions the anti-gunners ask. “How can MORE guns be safer?”…”…the escalating violence tends to disprove the argument that arming citizens makes them safer.”…”..where is the deterrent?”

I am truly amazed, to the point of disbelief, that anyone can ask these questions.

It is not, nor has it ever been about MORE GUNS. It is about the natural right for an individual to protect himself, his family and his home from those that do…and will continue to…use their guns, (which are nearly always illegally obtained, or possessed), to commit crimes against the individual, his family, his home and even the greater community. I own (Keep) one handgun. Allowing me to carry (Bear) my one firearm during my normal daily routine would not increase the number of handguns in this country. It’s already here. It’s not about MORE GUNS. It’s about whos’ hands they are in and how, when and why they are used…or not used, in so many cases.

Our Nation’s escalation in violent crime has many causes at it’s root but the handgun is not one of them. It has been proven over and over, in city…after state…after country…after era, that an armed public is a safer public.

The “bad guy” does not want to deal with a “victim” that may be able to defend himself.

THAT is the deterrent.

Even if we apply simple juvenile logic to statistical data and say that there were 100 gun-related murders in a given time frame. It seems to me that if the good guys were able to legally protect themselves, then maybe the 100 murders would be only 50 murders…or only 50 murders and 50 dead badguys…or 10 murders 60 dead bad guys and 30 people who get to live because a LEGALLY carried handgun prevented another violent crime, saving another life. There is no way to know how the actual numbers would play out, but history has shown that there are less “crime victims” when the public is not forced to live like one.

The DC vs Heller SCOTUS decision was a VERY important one but still does not provide for me, as a law abiding, highly trained, sane, non-felon, to protect myself and or my family when I leave the relative safety of my own home.

I hope that someday my actual “natural right to self protection” is no longer infringed.

[Scarecrow]

well written and very true. it is a shame that so many anti-constitutional people are in high places. hopefully the DC case is starting a wave of people tired of having their rights denied and that some sense will be brought back to this country. don't give up!

[NDS]

Remember that SCOTUS was addressing the case before them. There's a lot in Scalia's opinion--including the opposition (Ginsburg) definition of 'carry' which may come to haunt anti-gun people. It will take a number of cases to define the true limits of 2nd Amendment limits on government interference in our right to arms. Many people expect most of CA limits to fall in the next few years (mainly due to a 9th circuit preoccupation with 'collective right') and several other states' laws to be modified as well.

I know there are a couple of suits in CA, and elsewhere, already filed. As soon as some more judicial decisions are in, expect even more suits. Maybe we'll soon see a flood of challenges--I hope so.

At this point just don't be discouraged. I'm with those who think the worst is over and we'll begin to see a return of our wrongfully imposed upon rights.

[HK4U]

Keep and bare arms. What does bare mean. To have on your person.

One of the definitions from Websters 1848 dictionary is the following.

2. To carry; to convey; to support and remove from place to place; as, "they bear him upon the shoulder;", "the eagle beareth them on her wings."

Easy to understand to me.

[tattedupboy]

I've read 2A at least several thousand times in my lifetime, and nowhere do I see where it says that the right only applies in the home. If it did here's what I believe the Amendment would say:

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms in their homes, shall not be infringed. The legislatures of the several states shall determine the manner in which such arms shall be borne outside people's homes.

[Boofreakinyah]

I've read 2A at least several thousand times in my lifetime, and nowhere do I see where it says that the right only applies in the home. If it did here's what I believe the Amendment would say:

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms in their homes, shall not be infringed. The legislatures of the several states shall determine the manner in which such arms shall be borne outside people's homes.

That's exactly my point. The 2A does NOT say "In the Home", but the new SCOTUS majority opinion DOES.

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

It does not say "...such as self defense". It says "...such as self defense within the home." My concern is that this gives the grabbers a foothold in saying "Well, OK. You can have a gun in your home but you may no longer carry your HANDGUN outside the home.", effectively removing CCW rights. The only loophole I see are the words "Purposes" and "Such as" which tell me that there are other lawfull purposes that are being allowed for. (CCW etc.)

[gordo]

I believe he said "such as in the home" because the case brfore him only addressed in the home. By using "such as", it states that there are other reasons and places to have guns.

Just my non-legal opinion.

[dancingwolf]

I believe he said "such as in the home" because the case brfore him only addressed in the home. By using "such as", it states that there are other reasons and places to have guns.

Just my non-legal opinion.

I absolutely agree, gordo.