New Supreme Court cases could affect State 2a laws
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: New Supreme Court cases could affect State 2a laws

  1. #1

    New Supreme Court cases could affect State 2a laws

    Supreme Court cases could affect state laws- The New Haven Register - Serving New Haven, Connecticut

    New Haven Register - Serving Greater New Haven, CT

    The Supreme Court has clearly ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution means individuals have a right to own weapons, and the justices have been asked to take up two cases that could broaden that right to include state laws.

    The court’s decision on whether to take up the cases, National Rifle Association v. Chicago and McDonald v. Chicago, could come this week, before the fall term officially starts Oct. 5.

    The Second Amendment is one of the most contentious provisions in the Constitution. To many, it is an unqualified guarantee of Americans’ right to defend themselves. Others see it as referring to organized defense only, and want to limit gun ownership in order to reduce the amount of crime and death brought about by guns.

    Those who believe in the right to bear arms were encouraged when the Supreme Court issued its ruling last year, which was widely interpreted as the first time the court clarified that the amendment supports individuals’ rights.

    Through more than 200 years of legal interpretation, the court had not ruled as directly as the 5-4 majority did in District of Columbia v. Heller, constitutional law experts said.

    But Professor Dan Kahan of Yale Law School said the decision also includes a number of exceptions that allow many gun control laws.

    “I think that actually it’s remarkable in two respects,” Kahan said. “One, in that it does in fact call into question handgun restrictions that a lot of jurisdictions, including big cities, are likely to have.”

    But Justice Antonin A. Scalia Jr.’s majority decision also went “far, far beyond what you ordinarily normally see in a Supreme Court opinion to identify safe harbors of restriction,” he said.

    Among the fundamental freedoms included in the Bill of Rights are the words, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    Commentaries after the Heller decision was issued in June 2008 noted that, in two centuries of court decisions, this was the first time the Supreme Court had come down squarely for the right of individuals to own guns. Kahan agreed with that.

    “The previous case law (has) been ambiguous but certainly supported the notion that there might not be an individual right,” he said.

    But while it’s clear Americans have a right to have a gun in their homes, states can place limits on gun ownership outside of the home, Kahan said.

    He pointed to Scalia’s majority opinion, which states, “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.”

    Scalia added that laws against concealed weapons or weapons that would not normally be used outside of the military, such as machine guns, also are legal.

    That “advisory language” is unusual for Scalia, Kahan said, and undoubtedly was included for a reason. “I think he got his five votes ... through the insertion of a lot of language saying, ‘Hey, here are your safe harbors.’” Restrictions, especially laws against concealed weapons, “turn out to be highly, highly contested things,” he said.

    The minority on the court, however, saw the Heller decision as a threat to restrictions on gun ownership across the country. In his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said, “the decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States.”

    state laws could be next

    Because Washington is a federal district, the Heller ruling applies only to federal laws. The two new cases give the court the chance to broaden its ruling to the states.

    Scott Wilson, president of the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, hopes the court does that. His organization was formed in February in reaction to proposals in the General Assembly, such as micro-stamping of bullets, which gun advocates oppose.

    Wilson believes that, with a Democratic president and Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, “I think people are on board with why the Second Amendment is more important now.”

    At its core, the Second Amendment is about individual freedom from government, Wilson said. “When the Second Amendment was authored, our Founding Fathers had just got done battling, in essence, their own government and they felt that (it was) the only way to protect from tyranny in the future.”

    Between taxes and proposed limits on ammunition, Wilson said many fear the government would, for all intents and purposes, disarm the people who need to protect themselves.

    “I think what they would do is nip around the corners” of the right to bear arms, he said.

    One of the ways the state legislature has done so, he said, was with a bill passed last year that made it a crime not to report a lost or stolen gun within 48 hours. If someone steals his weapons without his knowledge and uses them in a crime, Wilson said, “I am now in essence potentially labeled a criminal because of the actions of another.”

    He also believes law-abiding citizens need guns to protect themselves from armed criminals. “The laws do nothing but stop the good guys, and the criminals are going to get the guns,” Wilson said.

    For some, though, preventing violence makes it important to reduce the number of guns that can get into the hands of criminals.

    “As someone who fears guns myself ... the harm that can be done with guns is quite considerable,” said Elizabeth Marsh, law professor at Quinnipiac University.

    While the original intent of the framers of the Constitution may have been to ensure people could defend themselves against government control, the Second Amendment needs to be looked at in terms of how it fits with modern needs, she said.

    “With all constitutional questions, it’s all a question of how you interpret the Constitution, and the Constitution I believe is a living document that needs to change with the times,” she said.

    Kahan sees such differing opinions not in terms of who is correct but in terms of the “cultural and moral predispositions” each of us brings to the debate.

    “People who have a more individualistic outlook think people ought to be responsible for securing the conditions of their own well-being without government interference,” he said.

    “People who have a more collectivist sensibility, who think the government should be providing for our needs, including security ... they tend to believe that restricting guns will make us safer.”

    Supreme Court cases could affect state laws- The New Haven Register - Serving New Haven, Connecticut

    New Haven Register - Serving Greater New Haven, CT

  2.   
  3. #2
    September 30, 2009

    YouTube - Glenn Beck Clips 09-30-09 Seg5- Alan Gura, Constitutional Lawyer on Chicago Gun Lawsuit

    Transcript:
    Glenn Beck - Interviews - Alan Gura Interview

    Alan Gura Interview

    GLENN: Well, the second chapter of Arguing With Idiots is the Second Amendment, and a guy who was instrumental, I mean, came to the table with more facts ask the best arguments you could possibly imagine is Alan Gura. Now, gee, why would he have great arguments? Oh, I don't know. He's the one who won the Heller case, the D.C. gun ban case in front of the Supreme Court, and we just got news -- I don't even know. Has this, has this even really been announced yet? Alan Gura is on the phone with us now. Hi, Alan.
    GURA: Hi, Glenn, how are you? I'm very happy to tell everyone that just the morning the Supreme Court has decided to hear my case out of the City of Chicago. They are going to hear whether or not the Second Amendment protects people not just from the federal government but also from their state and local politicians as well. And we're very confident that when everything is said and done, one year from now Chicago will no longer have a handgun ban.
    GLENN: Now, you went after this. Also the NRA. Did they accept the NRA's case?
    GURA: No, did not appear so.
    GLENN: What is the difference between the two cases?
    GURA: Well, there are some differences in the way that we argue the case. Our case, first of all, taxed some additional laws that their case did not reach. Both of us went after the handgun ban. Of course, Chicago has a handgun ban which is identical to Washington D.C.'s; that is, they require all guns to be registered and then you can't register a handgun, therefore handguns are banned. We've also gone after the idea that Chicago imposes an annual tax on your right to keep guns, if you have a rifle or a shotgun, you don't just pay 20 bucks to register; you've got to pay every year. With he don't think that's appropriate. The other --
    GLENN: And if you miss --
    GURA: Sorry?
    GLENN: If you miss that, it's against the law, too.
    GURA: Right.
    GLENN: If you miss it, there are some huge penalties to it.
    GURA: If you miss it, the gun becomes unregisterable which means not only can you not have it, nobody in the city can have it.
    GLENN: Right.
    GURA: It has to disappear and leave city limits if you miss by even one day, which is completely ridiculous. You can get supposedly an identical gun, just a different one, the one that you had registered you have to throw out.
    GLENN: Okay. So I know that the NRA didn't want -- I mean, they were afraid of the D.C. handgun bill. They were like, you know, I don't -- we don't know how they're going to come out. Why, why were both of you, you and the NRA, as soon as you won the Heller case in Washington, why did you both run to file this case? What is it that gives you confidence in this?
    GURA: Well, first of all, it's inevitable. I mean, you can't really avoid these questions. And this is why we filed the D.C. case, too. We realized that the way things were developing in the law that the Court would answer the Second Amendment question very soon, and we wanted the question answered in a good case on behalf of law-abiding, decent people instead of the usual way that Second Amendment cases had gone up through the court in cases like U.S. versus crackhead, U.S. versus bank robber. Those are not really the greatest cases to take when trying to vindicate individual rights. The reason we went immediately after Chicago is Chicago has an identical handgun ban. It's a crazy set of gun laws. And it's fairly obvious that now that we know the Second Amendment applies to the federal government, the next big question is, okay, does it apply to state and local governments. Because most gun laws live at the state and local level. And let's face it, Glenn: If congress can't take a gun away and President Obama can't take a gun away but the mayor takes your gun away, you still don't have a gun.
    GLENN: That is the way it is in New York City. So if you win this in New York -- if you win this in Chicago, does New York City then, does this ban fall in New York City?
    GURA: Yes, New York is definitely going to be sued. There's no question of that. They are going to have problems enforcing some of these laws. My understanding, I mean, obviously it's a wonderful book that you've put together, and I was very sad to see that the problems that people have in New York to try to register a handgun. It takes 400 to 500 --
    GLENN: Did you see the chart?
    GURA: Yes, it's crazy.
    GLENN: I'm going to show it on TV tonight because you are going to be on tonight, aren't you?
    GURA: Yes, I will.
    GLENN: The chart, let me look this up. The chart is insane on what you -- on Page 48, thank you, Stu, on what you have to do to be able to get a gun in New York City. It's crazy.
    GURA: It doesn't make any sense.
    GLENN: So is -- if you win in Chicago, then do we have to go through yet another case in New York and in California, or will one of these things collapse it in all of the states and cities?
    GURA: Well, it might take a case, but I don't think the New York case would necessarily go to the Supreme Court because the New York law, if the Second Amendment applies to New York City, then they cannot have the kind of law they have to do. I mean, there's no way that you can charge someone $1,000 and make them wait a year in order to exercise a basic constitutional right. There's no way. This regulation is not going to be upheld under any level of review. New York can regulate guns. They can require background checks, things like that. But the kind of things that they require, the bureaucratic process, it won't survive.
    GLENN: Pat is just looking at the bureaucratic process.
    PAT: So it's just, two, three, four... it's only about a 33-step process?
    GLENN: Yeah.
    PAT: It's not that bad. It's --
    GLENN: We have an attorney on with us tonight.
    PAT: It's that easy.
    GLENN: We have a guy who does this, helps people with the process. And they will say, have you ever applied for a license before, a state license before. Well, you're registering for a handgun. If you say no, well, then you have to start the entire process all over because they will say, "You don't have a driver's license?"
    PAT: Wow.
    GLENN: I mean, it is gotcha every step of the way.
    PAT: And it is 23 steps total waste of time, six to twelve months. Money spent, $500 to $1,000.
    GLENN: It's crazy.
    PAT: I mean, you basically can't get one.
    GLENN: So Alan, what happens if you lose this case?
    GURA: Well, if we lose this case, you know, then people don't have Second Amendment rights really outside of Washington, D.C.
    GLENN: So wait, wait. That means only in Washington could you have a gun because the local governments could regulate.
    GURA: That's right. If we lose this case, that is, if the court says that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states, then, you know, New York and Chicago can go ahead and take your guns away. I don't think that's going to happen, though. I mean, I do believe, I'm quite confident that given what the Supreme Court has said about the Second Amendment and Heller, it's all but -- it's highly likely that they're going to find that this is the kind of right that states and local governments have to obey.
    PAT: The amazing thing, though, the amazing thing, though, Alan, is that since Chicago has had this gun ban, the unbelievably, unbelievably low homicide rate in Chicago. It's almost -- I mean, nobody ever gets killed there.
    GLENN: It's nonexistent.
    PAT: It almost doesn't exist.
    GLENN: Well, unless they are using guns that have been thrown away.
    PAT: Right.
    GLENN: What -- Alan, help me out with this argument: All of the amendments to the Constitution, all the -- the Bill of Rights, that was a promise to the states: Look, as a federal government we will never do these things. For instance, freedom of religion. They had freedom of religion. The federal government said we wouldn't do it. But I believe it was Massachusetts or Connecticut had a state religion. So why can't the states go their own way? Why do they have to be slaves to the federal rules?
    GURA: Well, because we fought the Civil War and afterwards we discovered that just because people are American citizens and the federal government respects their life doesn't mean that they won't be tortured, killed, subject to all kinds of terroristic violence. I mean, the experience and the reconstruction South was enough to convince Americans at the time to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and the Fourteenth Amendment is every bit as good as every other part of the Constitution and the says that states cannot make or enforce any law that abridges upon the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. And what that was understood to mean at the time and plainly means was that states had to respect at a minimum the Bill of Rights as well as other sort of natural rights that people have always understood since the beginning of time that we all possess. The Supreme Court has not always been great about that, but over the years using at least the due process clause, the Supreme Court has found in case after case that just about every single right that you have in the Bill of Rights has to be respected by the state and local government as well. I mean, it wouldn't do you any good to exercise your First Amendment right to sell your book if Massachusetts, New York and Chicago banned your book.
    GLENN: Well, that's --
    GURA: You know, that's where it's most needed.
    GLENN: That could be coming. Alan, I appreciate it. We'll talk to you tonight.
    GURA: Fantastic. Looking forward to it.
    GLENN: You bet. That's Alan Gura. The breaking news now is the Supreme Court has decided to hear the Chicago gun ban case, and Alan will be arguing that.

    ...
    I hope Gura does not screw the pooch again with his compromises and concessions in front of SCOTUS like he did the last time in D.C. v. Heller...
    E.G.:

    "Justice John Paul Stevens asked Alan Gura, the attorney for **** Heller, if it would be proper to say that the right protected in the Second Amendment shall not be "unreasonably infringed"? To our shock and horror, Gura answered "yes." He did qualify his answer somewhat by saying "we don't know" exactly what this "unreasonable standard looks like." But he conceded a significant amount of ground with his answer, because any ban would be "reasonable" to Chuck Schumer and Sarah Brady."...

    "MR. GURA: Well, my response is that the government can ban arms that are not appropriate for civilian use. There is no question of that."...

    "JUSTICE GINSBURG: For example?
    MR. GURA: For example, I think machine guns"...

    "MR. GURA: At the time that -- even at the time Miller was decided, the civilian arms were pretty much the sort that were used in the military. However, it's hard to imagine how a machine gun could be a "lineal descendant," to use the D.C. Circuit's wording, of anything that existed back in 1791, if we want to look to the framing era. Machine guns"...

    WTF? This is coming from a guy Supporting the Second Amendment?
    ...
    03/08 GOA And Supreme Court Oral Arguments In DC v Heller

    Complete Oral Arguments - D.C. v Heller:
    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_a...pts/07-290.pdf

    Burn your ass yet?

    Read the rest of the oral arguments from D.C. v Heller aforementioned, take some notes of your own to respond to...

    AND Write this Dolt, send him a copy of the Second Amendment, and a copy of the following Tench Coxe quote...

    "Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe 1789

    Then ask him just what part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", does he not understand?

    Additionally, just whose side is he on anyway? we started off with a totally unambiguous Second Amendment, and now thanks to Alan Gura, the SCOTUS Miller Decision, and now the D.C. v. Heller Decision we have pretty much made ambiguous and otherwise fubared something, that needed no further clarification; pre-existing, fundamental, un-alienable, NON-NEGOTIABLE...

    Thanks to Alan Gura, SCOTUS gave the Green Light to D.C. and the rest of the Gun Ban crowd discretion to ban, regulate, and infringe upon that which "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"... While the Compromising Alan Gura & the NRA are touting a win; the fact is D.C. is continuing the infringement as usual; because of the ambiguous ruling by SCOTUS in June 2008, over a year later; you still can not buy a semi-auto pistol because they classify it as a "machine gun", which is OK to BAN according to Alan Gura; further, if you live long enough to get through the licensing and approval process; you can only buy certain types of revolvers and you can only carry them in your home...

    Moreover, ask him to STOP COMPROMISING ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT, and to not drop the ball again with the Chicago Gun Ban Case...
    Virginia Office – Alan Gura

    101 N. Columbus Street, Suite 405
    Alexandria, Virginia 22314
    Phone: 703.835.9085
    Fax: 703.997.7665

    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 you wish to carry that weapon open or concealed...

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

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Иєш Лєяжşєşŧăŋ
    Posts
    1,084
    Well, you inspired me to write to Gura today. Message went like this:

    Mr. Gura: I write to ask you to maintain a more staunch position with respect to the Second Amendment in "McDonald" than you did in "Heller". I refer specifically to the exchange: Justice John Paul Stevens asked Alan Gura, the attorney for **** Heller, if it would be proper to say that the right protected in the Second Amendment shall not be "unreasonably infringed"? To our shock and horror, Gura answered "yes." He did qualify his answer somewhat by saying "we don't know" exactly what this "unreasonable standard looks like." But he conceded a significant amount of ground with his answer, because any ban would be "reasonable" to Chuck Schumer and Sarah Brady."... "MR. GURA: Well, my response is that the government can ban arms that are not appropriate for civilian use. There is no question of that."... Most of us out here in the world feel as Ted Nugent pointed out: "The Second Amendment IS my Concealed Carry Permit", and agree with Tench Coxe: "Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - (Tench Coxe 1789) I applaud your good work and the inroads you are making in this arena. But please keep in mind that the phrase is "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"...not "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, EXCEPT...". Thank you for your representation and efforts on our behalf.
    Mr. Gura responds:

    Thanks for your support.

    With all due respect to Ted Nugent, who is very good at what he does, the Supreme Court held more than a hundred years ago that concealed carry is not protected by the Second Amendment. They just mentioned that again last year, and they referenced several hundred years of precedent from various state courts that supports that view.

    Now, my way of reading all that precedent is, concealed carry can only be banned if open carry is permitted. The cases make clear that the right to bear arms cannot be completely violated but that the manner of carrying is something in which the government has input. Aside from Vermont, the only other court that ever agreed with the “Nugent” view of a right to bear arms provision was Kentucky’s, back in the early 1800s. it was promptly overruled by constitutional amendment. So yes, the Second Amendment protects concealed carry, if that’s what your state prescribes as the manner of carrying. Texas and Florida are good examples of this. They ban open carry. They license concealed carry. It could easily be the opposite.

    I personally do not care whether you carry openly or concealed and if I were in a legislature I’d support both. But I’m not a legislator, or a rock star, I’m a lawyer that has to deal with hundreds of years of precedent and established doctrines, and I can’t be out there demanding that the Supreme Court ignore it all in favor of a view that, whatever its merits, has been thoroughly rejected by the American people and court system for many years. If you couldn’t get it in 1820 Kentucky, and there is now a mountain of precedent that says you can’t get it, that is not the hill on which you want to fight. If people in DC and Chicago have to get a permit to carry a gun the way folks in Texas do today, I’d take that as a victory.

    As for reasonableness, I basically told the Court that it was not a good standard, that it was too loose, too close to rational basis, and my reading of the opinion is that the Court agreed with that view. We suggested strict scrutiny as the standard of review and it is definitely arguable that that was adopted in n.27. would you have preferred I told the court that reasonableness was OK? Because they’re not about to rip out the metal detectors at the airport. So what’s your standard? Never? MP-5s in the aisle of the jumbo jet? Good luck with that.

    As for Tenche Cox. Sure it sounds great. But do individuals really get “every terrible implement of the soldier?” RPGs? Flame throwers? Stingers? Grenades? You really think the Supreme Court is going to be OK with that? Do you think a lawyer who makes that argument is going to come off as anything other than a complete nut?

    There is a place where the slogans stop and the reality begins. The Supreme Court is well within the reality, and reality is where I operate. Some people worry about metal detectors and RPGs. I’m focusing on a practical, meaningful Second Amendment that has every day relevance for normal people.
    I'm formulating a reply...
    NRA Life; GOA Life; CCRKBA Life; Trustee, NJCSD; F&AM: 32° & KT
    The Only Answer to a Bad Guy with a Gun - Is a Good Guy with a Gun!
    When Seconds Count...The Police are only MINUTES Away!

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Bonneau & Goose Creek, SC
    Posts
    444
    So the interpretation is that it is an individual right to keep and bear arms.
    The question these days is how we bear arms.

    South Carolina is like Texas and Florida where we do not have the right to openly carry but are required to pay for a permit to conceal which sounds like infringement to me.

    Therefore under that assessment, either all citizens can legally open carry and/or conceal carry without infringement, i.e.: permits/fees = another form of taxes.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Иєш Лєяжşєşŧăŋ
    Posts
    1,084
    . . . and here it is...

    Mr. Gura:

    Thank you for your reply. I actually wasn’t expecting one and I appreciate your time and consideration of my note. While I don’t want to belabor the matter and I’m sure you have more important things to do than become embroiled in a lengthy discussion with me, I would still like to address your note…

    Coming as I do from New Jersey, I would find it refreshing to have any form of self protection firearms carry available to me…open OR concealed. We are hamstrung with a State Constitution that pays lip-service to the Right of self-defense (NJ Constitution, Article I [1.] “All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.”) while denying one the tools necessary to guarantee that right in the real world. It’s very frustrating, but at least we can take comfort in the fact that our Governor and Senators are fully protected by their armed security, as are some of our wealthier citizens.

    Like you, I am not a legislator or rock star, or even a lawyer. I’m a simple guy with a clearly defined sense of patriotism and a fairly good grasp of English. Perhaps my perspective is too simple, but the words “shall not be infringed” speak heavily to me. They speak with the same volume as the First Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law”. Recent legislation seems to find those phrases flexible, as evidenced by laws like McCain/Feingold. Permitting legislation which erodes those mandates is wrong, and your work is a toe in the water to make some of it right again, and again I thank you for it.

    I can’t tell you about precedence, but I can tell you what I believe. I believe that the Second Amendment does, in fact, provide for The People to be as fully armed as the military. The purpose of the 2nd was to enable the people to take up arms to defend the Republic from a government gone bad…and how is one to do that without arms that the military would take notice of? I believe that “Gun Control” in all its manifestations has its roots in racism, since freed slaves were suddenly considered to be “free men”, and as such would be permitted arms, which was not a happy thought to those who would continue to repress them. I believe that, realistically, not everyone should have guns. But not everyone should have a driver’s license…or be allowed to vote…or procreate!! But who’s to make that decision? Vermont (and Alaska, too, now) seem to have no problem trusting the average citizen to make that decision for himself, and without catastrophic results.

    In the end, all I wanted to say, and the point I tried to make, is that acceding to some limitations inevitably leads to more limitations, and I would only ask that you set the bar as high as you can in your work. There are many of us out here who really do subscribe to the “Ted Nugent” philosophy and seek a champion, like yourself, who will act as a voice for us in that regard. A hundred years ago the Supreme Court tolerated a society where some people were ‘better’ than others. Times change, and happily the passing of time refined the Supreme’s view of the Constitution and they reinforced its basic tenet…that “All men are created equal.” I’m confident that, in time, their position on the 2nd will revert to basics, also, and they’ll recognize and reaffirm the basic human right of self defense and the freedom to exercise it. Certainly with your good work they’ll have the opportunity.

    Thank you once again for carrying this fight for us. I’m sure you will prevail and I look forward to reading of your success, both now and in the future.

    Sincerely,
    NRA Life; GOA Life; CCRKBA Life; Trustee, NJCSD; F&AM: 32° & KT
    The Only Answer to a Bad Guy with a Gun - Is a Good Guy with a Gun!
    When Seconds Count...The Police are only MINUTES Away!

  7. #6
    I still contend that Alan Gura is the WRONG ATTORNEY to be representing Second Amendment Constitutional issues; because his logic is fundamentally flawed...

    His logic makes assumptions that past decisions were Constitutional and Consistent with Jeffersonian and Mason Bill of Rights and Second Amendment beliefs that it merrily re-affirms a PRE-EXISTING, FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE RIGHT, and does not grant any privilege...

    He apparently, actually believes that the Court(s) have been correct in their assumption that the Second Amendment is not without limits...

    The guy needs to recuse himself in OUR BEST INTEREST...

    He quotes everybody but the two guys most responsible for the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment specifically; Thomas Jefferson and George Mason... or the other 56 guys who Unambiguously Concurred and Stated "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"...

    Thomas Jefferson; paraphrased... it is every citizens duty to at all times be armed and be trained at as early an age as possible to use said armament...
    Jefferson was noted to always be armed, concealed more often then not...

    "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

    No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority" Thomas Jefferson

    Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases. - Thomas Jefferson

    To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. – George Mason

    "Let me add, that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse or rest on inference." -Thomas Jefferson: Letter to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787

    I say that the Second Amendment doesn't allow for exceptions – or else it would have read that the right "to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless Congress chooses otherwise." And because there are no exceptions, I disagree with my fellow panelists who say the existing gun laws should be enforced. Those laws are unconstitutional [and] wrong – because they put you at a disadvantage to armed criminals, to whom the laws are no inconvenience. – Harry Browne, meetings with NRA's EVP, Wayne LaPierre and other panelists at a gun rights rally in Hot Springs, AR, 8/8/2000

    Alan Gura does not get it...THE FIRST FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT...

    In Short; Alan Gura is a hack... we need to get somebody from the NO COMPROMISE SIDE OF THE FENCE, LIKE GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA http://gunowners.org/ TO STAND UP FOR US ON THESE ISSUES FOR WHICH THERE CAN BE NO COMPROMISE...

    Either the Constitution matters or it does not...

    "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"... you can not read anymore into it...

    Alan Gura needs to take in a real-subject matter expert on the Unabridged Second Amendment... instead of burying his head in legalese; for starters...
    The Unabridged Second Amendment

    Thus, whenever you hear a judge, politician, lawyer, or talking head in the media speak of what rights you do or don’t have under the Constitution, you are hearing at best an ignorant statement, and at worst, a lie. And whenever you find yourself running to look in the Bill of Rights to see whether you have a right to do something, you are making a fundamental error. Your rights are inherently yours by nature and by nature’s God.

    Bill of Rights
    God Given
    Non-Negotiable

    Without our Liberty, we have NOTHING...


    BTW Ektarr... good correspondence with Alan Gura, I have not heard back from him yet, hopefully he is being inundated with REALITY from others like yourself that contrary to his belief that the courts AND the American people overwhelmingly supported all the nonsense Anti-Second Amendment legislation and precedent he claims they did; when in fact until the last 20 years or so the American People have been pretty much sequestered from what the Courts & Washington were doing with their UNALIENABLE RIGHTS...

    Now that People are becoming aware of whats happening and what's happened behind their grandparents, great-grandparents backs etc., they are saying enough is enough; NOT ON MY WATCH!

    Status Quo NO MORE!

    WE THE PEOPLE - CAN READ...

    WE KNOW WHAT A CAPSTONE GRIEVANCE IS...

    AND THAT THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE LAST WORD; WE THE PEOPLE DO!

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658
    The issue I have with open carry is the "I'm a target" factor. In this day and age the criminals have no chance of obtaining a gun permit, I’m walking along with my gun on my hip and I become a target for those who want a gun without strings attached. If some “gansta wanna-be” is looking for a piece for the next hold up or car-jacking, well I could be his target. If I get smacked on the head from behind and my gun is gone, who’s protected now? Open carry is dangerous for that reason as well as the unwanted attention and prejudice from the non gun owning public. Getting stopped by the police every time I go to the store or God forbid the bank or ATM. Sooner or later I’m going to run across a police officer that’s a little too nervous. I’d rather not advertise it. The right shall not be infringed upon. Period. I’ll have to put together a well crafted expression of my feelings to send along to Mr. Gura to keep him motivated. Thanks for posting all this information and links to more.
    You can give peace a chance alright..

    I'll seek cover in case it goes badly..

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by 6shootercarry View Post
    The issue I have with open carry is the "I'm a target" factor. In this day and age the criminals have no chance of obtaining a gun permit, I’m walking along with my gun on my hip and I become a target for those who want a gun without strings attached. If some “gansta wanna-be” is looking for a piece for the next hold up or car-jacking, well I could be his target. If I get smacked on the head from behind and my gun is gone, who’s protected now? Open carry is dangerous for that reason as well as the unwanted attention and prejudice from the non gun owning public. Getting stopped by the police every time I go to the store or God forbid the bank or ATM. Sooner or later I’m going to run across a police officer that’s a little too nervous. I’d rather not advertise it. The right shall not be infringed upon. Period. I’ll have to put together a well crafted expression of my feelings to send along to Mr. Gura to keep him motivated. Thanks for posting all this information and links to more.
    I still think it should be the choice of WE THE PEOPLE as individuals whether or not we desire to carry open or concealed...
    SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED and all...

    And what that weapon is; be it a mp-5, a pair of nunchaku, a club, two-by-four or a fricking RPG or tank for that matter; the fact is we have the inherent pre-existing right to defend our lives, that of our friends, family neighbors and the like by any means necessary, from all enemy's foreign or domestic using equal or greater force then may be brought against us... Including the tyranny of our own government....

    What are the chances of some martyrdom seeker getting foolish on that next international flight when the lions share are openly packing?

    Open Carry in my view has the obvious don't f**k with me connotation...

    In my view Concealed Carry Permits are back door firearms registration; which if history is any indication of things to come...
    Has ALWAYS led to CONFISCATION...

    Mr. & Mrs. America turn them all in... Senator "Diane Feinstein" (D-CA)

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

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

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658
    Agreed... I don't like the restrictions. I have a good relationship with local LE and have had no issues, but I was speaking with colleagues today about guns and such and I was asked what level of license I was issued. I said Class A unrestricted. One said he was having an issue getting a FID card and the other is being told to expect Class B not Class A… Sad how each town, never mind the state, has a say in who does and who does not have the right. It’s good that all this attention is now being focused on 2A. My choice is exactly that, my choice. In MA there is no law that states no open carry, but the Class A license describes the carrying as “carry or possess a loaded firearm in a concealed manner in any public way or place”. I take that as concealed. I’ve been told same by the LE that I know. All this new attention to the 2nd amendment and the true intent of the statement “right to keep and bear arms” will be interesting to be a part of. If voices are needed to make those who fail to listen really hear then mine will be lent.
    You can give peace a chance alright..

    I'll seek cover in case it goes badly..

  11. #10
    From The Declaration of Independence...
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness ….
    The Declaration of Independence

    Alan Gura should try reading or re-reading it once in while, so he can get his due diligence straight...

    I think Stewart Rhodes is at the top of the list of those I'd like to see in front of SCOTUS defending the Second Amendment; as his views are clearly consistent with those of the founding fathers including but not limited to Thomas Jefferson & George Mason.

    Oath Keepers Oath Keepers – Guardians of the Republic

    Oath Keepers

    Dirt Rhodes Scholar: THE FIRST FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT

    We should be asking Stewart and or Guns Owners of America to talk to Alan Gura about his flawed view of the Second Amendment and his inept, compromising support of it and the Status Quo.

    Gun Owners of America

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •  
Quantcast