New Supreme Court cases could affect State 2a laws - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

New Supreme Court cases could affect State 2a laws

This is a discussion on New Supreme Court cases could affect State 2a laws within the Politics forums, part of the Main Category category; Bohemian, I have no doubt that the framers of the Constitution viewed the Second Amendment as enumerating a fundamental, individual ...

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Bohemian, I have no doubt that the framers of the Constitution viewed the Second Amendment as enumerating a fundamental, individual right rooted in nature and pre-dating the Constitution. They also probably had no problem with concealed weapons.

    But expecting Alan Gura to go in and argue that shall not be infringed means no permits for CCW; no limits whatsoever on the "arms" kept and borne; no fees or delays; no disqualification because of criminal record, mental illness, or desire to overthrow the government by force; no background check—this is going to garner as much success as insisting that the federal income tax is unconstitutional. Even though Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, et al. likely would have agreed with you, you're going to lose.

    As Alan Gura says, he has to deal with reality. And the reality is that we've made enormous gains over the past three decades and can expect still more when Chicago, New York, San Francisco, and other anti-gun cities get their comeuppance. We will soon see New York–type unreasonable fees and delays and questionnaires ruled unconstitutional, too, but we're never going to see no fee at all or no delay at all or no questionnaire at all.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    3,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BamaBoy View Post
    Bohemian, I have no doubt that the framers of the Constitution viewed the Second Amendment as enumerating a fundamental, individual right rooted in nature and pre-dating the Constitution. They also probably had no problem with concealed weapons.

    But expecting Alan Gura to go in and argue that shall not be infringed means no permits for CCW; no limits whatsoever on the "arms" kept and borne; no fees or delays; no disqualification because of criminal record, mental illness, or desire to overthrow the government by force; no background check—this is going to garner as much success as insisting that the federal income tax is unconstitutional. Even though Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, et al. likely would have agreed with you, you're going to lose.

    As Alan Gura says, he has to deal with reality. And the reality is that we've made enormous gains over the past three decades and can expect still more when Chicago, New York, San Francisco, and other anti-gun cities get their comeuppance. We will soon see New York–type unreasonable fees and delays and questionnaires ruled unconstitutional, too, but we're never going to see no fee at all or no delay at all or no questionnaire at all.
    I have to agree to disagree...

    Both yours & Alan Gura's is a logical fallacy...

    And Gun Owners of America clearly epitomized that in their amicus curiae brief in D.C. v Heller, et.al.

    When somebody supposedly is on your side (or the other side for that matter) makes statements to the effect that ANY bans by class or type of firearm or weapon are Constitutionally permitted under the Second Amendment; it goes against everything this country was founded on...

    Battle of Lexington & Concord AKA: the start of the Revolutionary War...
    What started it? British told the Colonists your farmers, what need do you have for Cannon's ?

    Alamo... Santa Anna tried to take the Texan's Cannon's...

    Our forefathers literally died, to uphold "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" and now we have Alan Gura, the NRA and others ready, willing and conceding that it can be...

    How can our children & their descendants look at us with anything but utter contempt, when we have those such as spineless Alan Gura giving up without a fight...
    And we side with him/them...

    And others accepting it as the Status Quo...

    Just because it has been allowed to happen thus far does not make it right...

    The vast majority of the most heinous Infringements of the Second Amendment came before the Internet; and without it being made well-known publicly before the fact...

    There are plenty of valid arguments for former criminals to have a firearm...

    For example, IF the Court determines that they are no longer a threat to society, and they have served their time, then give them all their rights back; right to vote, second amendment etc...
    Its hypocritical for the Court to say they are no longer a threat to society, but they are no longer able to defend their lives, that of their friends family and neighbors by any means necessary...

    The same goes for mental defectives; if you are not a threat to society then you can own a firearm; if you are you should not be allowed on the streets anyway.

    As long as you are incarcerated as a mental defective or criminal; the Government is taking personal responsibility for your safety and well-being; so in that Scenario only, can a palatable argument be made that they can not keep & bear arms... ONLY WHILE INCARCERATED.

    Until everybody in this country has their own personal 24/7 Police officer(s) that can be proactive to deter a crime, before it happens, being able to effectively resist armed gangs going house to house as happened following Katrina just in recent history... instead of reactive to a crime that has been committed; there is no valid argument for bans of any type or class of weapon, or their regulation and registration thereof; which as history has proved 100% of the time... HAS ALWAYS LED TO CONFISCATION ...

    This Country was founded in-blood by individuals whom refused to concede one iota of their liberty to a tyrannical government, and now sycophant, arse-kissers such as Alan Gura and the NRA are giving up our liberties without a fight...

    The Unabridged Second Amendment:
    http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

    Repeal the 16th Amendment - Repeal & Ban the IRS:
    http://www.fairtax.org/

    H.R. 25 Fair Tax Act 2009:
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-25

    The Only No-Compromise Gun Lobby In Washington:
    Gun Owners of America

    http://www.usacarry.com/forums/2nd-a...pen-watch.html

    http://www.usacarry.com/forums/2nd-a...fiscation.html

    Biased ABC News 20-20 Gun Ban Agenda

    "The Second Amendment IS my Concealed Carry Permit" - Ted Nugent







    Bill of Rights...
    God Given...
    Non-Negotiable.

    Without our Liberty, we have NOTHING.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Cape Cod
    Posts
    587

    Default

    Outstanding debate here and outstanding posts! We can be thankful that the 2nd Ammendment has come to the forefront of discussion and debate. We are regaining much lost ground over the years. Our rights with respect to so many things, most specifically the 2nd Ammendment, have eroded like a sand dune in a nor'easter. With that said, we are rebuilding the beachead and I am looking forward to more victories!

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Yes, I think we are indeed rebuilding the beachhead. If Heller had come before the Warren or Burger courts, we would have lost. (Burger, who once pulled a pistol on someone who came to his door in the middle of the night, in fact called the individual-rights position "a fraud on the American public.") Fifteen years ago, my son's "American Studies" school text, in its section on the Bill of Rights, showed a picture of some National Guardsmen holding rifles in front of a tank, with the caption, "The Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, which we exercise in the form of our National Guard units." Another picture showed some stiff-spined police officers standing solemnly behind a table covered with "crime guns." The caption: "Guns are used in xxx number of crimes every year. There is no individual right to own a firearm." No debate. No acknowledgment of another position. Just an absolute statement telling the kids the Second Amendment means nothing. Those texts now rightfully go into the trash.

    A look at the animated map that shows the "death of gun control" reveals a sociopolitical sea change that was inconceivable 25 years ago. And this morning even the gun-hating Los Angeles Times conceded that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right and should be incorporated.

    The fact is that I agree with Bohemian philosophically. Denial of Second Amendment rights to somebody simply because he was once incarcerated must come under the strictest scrutiny, and we're already seeing some change in that area. But we're not going to get everything in one fell swoop. Let's first establish unequivocally that the Second Amendment applies to the states. From that plateau we can argue that people who are no longer dangerous can't have their rights taken away. From that plateau we can argue that CCW reciprocity should apply to all states and DC.

    Remember that after "HillaryCare" crashed and burned, Mrs. Clinton said she now realized that things (i.e., socialism) had to be done "incrementally." What good does it do to go before the court with an absolutist position when you're simply going to lose the case and give the momentum to the enemy?

    As I said, I favor the strategy that I think will work in the real world. We can win the case against Chicago as we watch more and more states fall into line. Just in the past few weeks, both Kansas and Nebraska added themselves to my reciprocity list. And the national Democrats don't want any part of gun control. You might feel better demanding everything all at once, but it's a losing strategy. The idea is to keep getting victories of whatever size you can.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    3,088

    Default

    IF we trade Federal Infringement for State or other Municipality Infringement we are no better off...

    IF we trade a Gun Ban for Draconian Registration and Licensing, what have we gained? The ability for Obama & Company to come to our front door's, place of work etc., when Diane Feinstein & Company gets her way... "Mr. & Mrs. America Turn Them All In"...

    The longer we allow the current Infringements of the Second Amendment to be the Status Quo, the harder it will be to get back to the principals & tenet's this Country was founded on...

    WTFU Sheeple!

    No More Compromises! Take Back The Republic!

    As previously suggested in this thread; write Alan Gura, the NRA, The SAF, The JPFO, The Gun Owners of America, Your Senators & Congressman, State & Federal...

    First Set Alan Gura & the NRA straight; Compromises are unacceptable...

    Then urge all of the aforementioned to present a amicus curiae brief to SCOTUS, urging the restoration of the Unabridged Second Amendment, repeals of 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA, 1986 FOPA, Brady Bill(s) ad nauseam, NICS, NICS Improvement Act(s), et.al. We do not need 22,000 + and counting firearms laws; we have the only one we need, the Second Amendment...

    Without the Unabridged Second Amendment, all other rights have no meaning, value and are virtually unenforceable...

    The Unabridged Second Amendment:
    The Unabridged Second Amendment

    "The Second Amendment IS my Concealed Carry Permit" - Ted Nugent

    YouTube - Alan Keyes on the Second Amendment and gun rights

    "I am not mad at criminals, I am mad at my legislators for legislating away my right to defend myself" - Dr. Susan Gratia-Hupp

    YouTube - Suzanna Gratia Hupp explains meaning of 2nd Amendment!

    YouTube - Penn & Teller on the 2nd Amendment

    YouTube - Ron Paul 2nd amendment

    YouTube - Huckabee on the Second Amendment

    "Its time we started giving the Second Amendment the same attention we give the First Amendment" - Governor Mike Huckabee

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    3,088

    Default Legislators Will File Brief In McDonald v. Chicago Case

    NRA-ILA :: Legislators Will File Brief In <EM>McDonald</EM> v. <EM>Chicago</EM> Case

    Let us continuously remind our legislators, the NRA, Alan Gura, and those that would file a amicus curiae brief in support of McDonald v. Chicago to not concede that a ban on any type/class of firearm/weapon is acceptable in any way, shape or form...

    Nor is Draconian Registration, and Licensing Schemes thereof...

    The Second Amendment does not state “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” Except… if your zip code is X, your standing at Y, or the type or class of weapon/arm you have or desire to have is Z…
    Or IF said weapon is carried openly or concealed...
    Or "Just Because You Have A Right, Does Not Mean The Government Cannot Constrain That Right" - Barack Hussein Obama

    John Dickison, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from Pennsylvania, explained an unalienable right this way: it is something “Which God gave to you and which no inferior power has a right to take away.”...
    Another Second Amendment Case Heads to the Supreme Court

    How the Repeal of All Gun Laws Will Free America (Part 1)

    How the Repeal of All Gun Laws Will Free America (Part 2)

    Bill of Rights...
    God Given...
    Non-Negotiable...

    Without our Liberty, we have NOTHING.

    "The Second Amendment IS my Concealed Carry Permit" - Ted Nugent

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    3,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    NRA-ILA :: Legislators Will File Brief In <EM>McDonald</EM> v. <EM>Chicago</EM> Case

    Let us continuously remind our legislators, the NRA, Alan Gura, and those that would file a amicus curiae brief in support of McDonald v. Chicago to not concede that a ban on any type/class of firearm/weapon is acceptable in any way, shape or form...

    Especially, tell Alan Gura Esq., TO GROW A PAIR...

    Nor is Draconian Registration, and Licensing Schemes thereof...

    The Second Amendment does not state “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” Except… if your zip code is X, your standing at Y, or the type or class of weapon/arm you have or desire to have is Z…
    Or IF said weapon is carried openly or concealed...
    Or "Just Because You Have A Right, Does Not Mean The Government Cannot Constrain That Right" - Barack Hussein Obama

    John Dickison, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from Pennsylvania, explained an unalienable right this way: it is something “Which God gave to you and which no inferior power has a right to take away.”...
    Another Second Amendment Case Heads to the Supreme Court

    How the Repeal of All Gun Laws Will Free America (Part 1)

    How the Repeal of All Gun Laws Will Free America (Part 2)

    Bill of Rights...
    God Given...
    Non-Negotiable...

    Without our Liberty, we have NOTHING.

    "The Second Amendment IS my Concealed Carry Permit" - Ted Nugent
    Don't let this fall through the cracks...

    Contact your local Firearms Group, the NRA, GOA, SAF, JPFO, Alan Gura Esq., and others and make sure they know that a UNABRIDGED VIEW OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, IS THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE VIEW OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT...

    NO CONCESSIONS, IN BRIEFS, MOTIONS, STATEMENTS TO THE COURT(S) OR OTHERWISE.

    Repeal Existing Unconstitutional Laws, Not Create Them Or Support Them...

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    143

    Default

    The question will be, and you really need to have an appropriate answer to make the argument valid; where is the line drawn on arms that can be limited? Machine guns, 25mm Chain Gun, M1 Abrams Tank, 155mm Howitzer, personal nuclear warhead?
    Executive Director, Florida Carry, Inc.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    3,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StogieC View Post
    The question will be, and you really need to have an appropriate answer to make the argument valid; where is the line drawn on arms that can be limited? Machine guns, 25mm Chain Gun, M1 Abrams Tank, 155mm Howitzer, personal nuclear warhead?
    They can't Constitutionally BAN none of them from civilian ownership...

    They could make a valid argument for regulation of the nukes, but that is about it...

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    3,088

    Default McDonald v. Chicago - Update - Oral Arguments This Week


    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •