In a victory for gun control advocates, a federal appeals court said Thursday people do not have a right to carry concealed weapons in public under the 2nd Amendment.

An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said law enforcement officials can require applicants for a concealed weapons permit to show they are in immediate danger or have another good reason for a permit beyond self-defense.

The decision overturned a 2014 ruling by a smaller 9th Circuit panel and came in a lawsuit over the denial of concealed weapons permits by a sheriff in San Diego County.

During oral arguments before the 11-judge 9th Circuit panel, Paul Clement, an attorney for the residents, argued that the self-defense standard should be sufficient and asking for more violates the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

California Solicitor General Edward DuMont countered that there was a long and rich tradition of restricting concealed weapons in cities and towns. California officials sought to intervene in the case after the San Diego sheriff declined to appeal.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/court-no-right-to-carry-concealed-weapons-in-public/ar-AAgRbfs?li=BBnb7Kz

So they expect people to carry openly?  How stupid is that?

1.  It puts a target on you, letting the criminals know who to look out for.
2.  It makes certain people feel uncomfortable if they see law abiding citizens carrying guns openly

How about a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy?

you don't have to carry at all if you don't want to dan.  Unless you're buying or selling illegal drugs you chances of being involved in a violent crime is for all practical purposes zero.

It will be going to the USSC... and Trump will seat Constitutional Judges!

Meanwhile, we all can see how the LEFT wants to abolish the Second Amendment... can't we?

Ok.  You don't really believe Trump will be president do you xyz?

What's this have to do with abolishing the second amendment?  The USC has always said gun regulations were perfectly constitutional.

So it's either carry openly or don't carry at all???  That's an unnecessary burden placed on the constitutional rights of law abiding American citizens, and thus unconstitutional.

Well it's certainly not going to be Hillary.

That leaves us with Warren or Biden, Trump and Romney or Ryan

Ok.  You don't really believe Trump will be president do you xyz?

You'd better hope he does. Because if you think you lowlives can riot, beat and stomp on Americans who want to make America great again... and get away with it, well then you really are stupid.

can I mark that dan?

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that a key provision of the District’s new gun law is unconstitutional, ordering D.C. police to stop requiring individuals to show “good reason” to obtain a permit to carry a firearm on the streets of the nation’s capital.

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon found that the law violates the “core right of self-defense” granted in the Second Amendment, setting aside arguments from District officials that the regulation is needed to prevent crime and protect the public.

“The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table,” Leon wrote in a 46-page opinion, quoting a 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision in 2008 in another District case.

Unless you're buying or selling illegal drugs you chances of being involved in a violent crime is for all practical purposes zero.

Wvit seems to know a lot about that doesn't he?

Matter of fact he's made that same statement several times!
Any excuse to disarm the citizen is ok with wvit, as long as it's a law abiding citizen going in the body bag, and not the criminal!

Unless you're buying or selling illegal drugs you chances of being involved in a violent crime is for all practical purposes zero.

Cars jacking at gun point is a daily occurrence. Store hold ups are more often.. that statement holds no water.

they happen on a daily basis boz?  have you been involved in either in your long life?

https://www.youtube.com/v/sibOGNX-n0M

The 9th circuit holds the record for overturned decision

I wouldn't take them that seriously especially in the light of other court decision and the 2nd amendment
which is plainly written the right "shall not be infringed" upon that even a mental case like nitwit should be able to understand

you don't have to carry at all if you don't want to dan.  Unless you're buying or selling illegal drugs you chances of being involved in a violent crime is for all practical purposes zero.
 
I hope and pray you and every liberal on this board suffer that "near zero" better yet, I hope and pray you are called to identify the body of your loved one from that "near zero"

2nd Amendment Does Not Guarantee Right to Carry Concealed Guns, Court Rules (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/us/second-amendment-concealed-carry.html)


well sine...because your Republicans in the US Senate don't want to hold hearings for the Supreme Court opening...a 4-4 vote (likely) on this matter will effectively leave that ruling stand.


try and pay attention.

poor DaBox...take your gun and become a statistic.

What and when are the Supreme Court voting on JW?

So far the've upheld gun rights

Apparently it's you who has no clue

no, so far they've upheld gun regulations.

What regulation?

They told DC that they can't ban guns, and told San Diego they had to issue concealed carry permits
that they weren't doing, also they ruled against the state of socialist Calif for trying to ban concealed and open carry
which essentially would have nullified the 2nd amendment.

As JW said to me in another post ... " try to pay attention" (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/shocked.gif)

What regulation?

They told DC that they can't ban guns, and told San Diego they had to issue concealed carry permits
that they weren't doing, also they ruled against the state of socialist Calif for trying to ban concealed and open carry
which essentially would have nullified the 2nd amendment.

As JW said to me in another post ... " try to pay attention" (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/shocked.gif)

nobody's trying to ban guns, just saying they don't have a right to carry them concealed in public.

They want to take your guns and deny your inalienable right to bear arms.   If you are in immediate danger, you will be dead by the time you think about getting a permit.  You're farked.

you don't have an unregulated right to bear arms.

Unless you're buying or selling illegal drugs you chances of being involved in a violent crime is for all practical purposes zero.

You're chance of getting shot is practically zero, for that matter.

The 2nd amendment says we do have the right to "bear" /carry arms and it cannot be "infringed"

It's my concealed carry permit!

So they expect people to carry openly?  How stupid is that?

Actually I prefer open carry.  If you got it, flaunt it so no one will mess with you.  But, you have an inalienable right to carry any way you want to.

Wrong. over a half dozen truckers have been shot in the last month. We spend our nights in areas with little, if any, outside security.

Half a dozen out of how many?  The average person's chances are practically zero.

"Practically" is to large a number when it comes to their families chuck. I personally don't carry a firearm.  But I keep a 2 lb sledge and a cattle prod close to hand when I'm parked at night. And yes, I've had to use them.

in re: Reply #11

California's Strict Concealed Gun Rules Restored by the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

The order puts on hold a decision by U.S. District Court Judge Richard J. Leon, who found that the city's gun regulation is probably unconstitutional because it infringes on the Second Amendment's "core right of self-defense".

But if there is such a right, it is a right only to carry a gun openly, and that issue was not before the court, the majority said.

http://gadgetsandtechnologynews.com/2016/06/09/californias-strict-concealed-gun-rules-restored-by-court.html

nobody's trying to ban guns, just saying they don't have a right to carry them concealed in public.
 
It is apparent you lack the intelligence to grasp the end game, there's an old expression, "How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time" This is a fine example of "mission creep" the Gestapo starts slowly banning YOUR RIGHTS and after a period of time people will wonder "How did I lose my RIGHTS to keep and bear arms" It's very sad that LIBERALS who claim to be AMERICAN work diligently to DESTROY everything / anything AMERICAN. Since our judicial system has been infested with liberalism and stupidity I'll continue to ignore their decision on my rights to protect myself, my family, YOU have the right to be a victim

I re: Reply #35

The case is Peruta (http://lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/peruta-v-county-of-san-diego-742-f-3d-1144-9th-circuit-ct-app-2014/) v. Gore, 10-56971, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (San Francisco). The department had required applicants to show "good cause" why they needed a concealed weapons permit.

http://gadgetsandtechnologynews.com/2016/06/09/californias-strict-concealed-gun-rules-restored-by-court.html






</section>

To: DaBoz, Dan, xwxzy321, sweetwater5s9, don't-blameme, sine-qua-non, Baretta19, chuck_curtis, and stretch351c

FYI

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/09/ninth_circuit_rules_no_constitutional_right_to_concealed_carry_of_firearms.html

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that a key provision of the District’s new gun law is unconstitutional, ordering D.C. police to stop requiring individuals to show “good reason” to obtain a permit to carry a firearm on the streets of the nation’s capital.

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon found that the law violates the “core right of self-defense” granted in the Second Amendment, setting aside arguments from District officials that the regulation is needed to prevent crime and protect the public.

“The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table,” Leon wrote in a 46-page opinion, quoting a 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision in 2008 in another District case.

At the end of the day, they have effectively infringed on your rights when they make it extremely difficult, impossible if you have to wait until you are in immediate danger, to legally carry them.   Where and how you carry them is materially irrelevant.  It goes beyond "regulation".  Yes, they want to take your guns.  Absolutely.

I'm all for the strict regulation of firearms in our country.  I think every gun should be registered and every gun owner licensed.

Thing is it would be across the board so everyone is treated equally. 

It would be no different that voter ID wvit.

But you don't give a shit about that because gun control supports your political agenda.

Yes, it is different that voter ID.  Voting is not a regulated right, every American can vote.  Guns are a regulated right.

 every American can vote.

Oh, there are no disenfranchised voters now.

GD pathological liars.

you are required to register to vote aren't you boz?  Why shouldn't you be required to register to own a gun?

are you guys for getting rid of voter registration?

Felons can vote in lots of states after they've served their sentences and in a couple of states they can vote from jail even.

People with felony convictions can vote upon completion of sentence. People in prison, on parole and on probation cannot vote. People with felony convictions can vote upon completion of sentence.

Here's a review of states and their laws on felons voting boz.  Take a look and see how wrong you are -

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286

wvit claims never to lie or mislead.

so you two nuts haven't said why you think voting should require registration but owning guns shouldn't.

when have I ever lied to you duke or tried to mislead you?

so boz you ask a question, I answer it showing you that you are wrong again.  now you don't want to discuss you idiocy anymore?

 
Many times, wvit.  They were pointed out in real time, too, so I will not go back and work for you.

you haven't produced any facts to support your idiocy boz.  but I have.   Now you want to talk about something else for some reason.

I don't even know that is a real concern local.  We have voter registration, why wouldn't we have firearm registration.  Neither would cost anything so how are either impacting minorities?

so you two nuts haven't said why you think voting should require registration but owning guns shouldn't.

Personally I believe your voter registration should be proof you are eligible to own guns.

If I can't trust you with a gun why the hell would I trust you to vote for what's good for this country? And look at the money it would save by ending a duplication of effort.

                                                                                                                                       

I see you only want to take stuff out of context now local.  what about the rest of my comment?


We have voter registration, why wouldn't we have firearm registration.  Neither would cost anything so how are either impacting minorities?

trust doesn't enter into this at all local.  there's nothing in the voter registration process about trust.

I's with you though.  I don't have any problems registering my guns along with my registering to vote. 

registering your guns isn't difficult.  All you need to do is provide the model number and serial numbers for each of your weapons.

wvit,

and who would i give that infomation to?

same people you give your voter registration information to, the State governments.

now you're just being silly local.  It's a shame your argument always comes to this.

  Natural rights are those which the individual brings with him when he enters  into the social contract, and reclaims if the social contract is broken. The  right to keep and bear arms is such a natural right, as is the right of free  speech, religious belief, and privacy.

The alternative is a contractual right  created by a contract, such as the social contract. The right to vote or to  be judged by a jury of one's peers are examples of rights created by the social  contract, albeit important ones that are also constitutionally protected. Because  they are constitutionally protected, it is only proper to speak of them as disabled,  rather than lost, so long as the subject remains a citizen or natural person,  depending on whether it is a right of citizenship or personhood.

To be constitutional, state laws restricting the bearing of arms must  distinguish between public property, private commercial property which serves  the public and which therefore confers certain rights to the public, and other  private property with no public access rights. It is reasonable and constitutional  to prohibit persons from bearing arms onto purely private property without notifying  the owner or manager and obtaining his or her permission, except over public  easements.

On the other hand, it would be an undue burden on the right to bear arms to  forbid persons from traveling between places where they have a right to be,  and to bear arms while they do so, along public pathways or private easements,  and using their own or a public means of transportation. It may not, however,  be an undue burden to prohibit the bearing of arms onto certain public property  where persons do not have unrestricted access, such as office buildings and  auditoriums, provided that authorities guarantee the safety of persons who enter  unarmed. Owners of commercial property serving the public which confers some  rights of access to the public may prohibit the bearing of arms by posting or  giving a notice to that effect, but lacking such notice, bearing arms onto the  premises would be permitted. The rule must be that laws must not burden the  right to bear arms except to the extent that they would impose a greater burden  on the right of property owners to exclude persons bearing arms.

more @

http://www.scopeny.org/rkba.html

the only rights you have sweaty are the ones that we have written into our Constitution.  There are no natural rights.

go outside our country and try claiming your natural rights and see where it gets you.

There are no natural rights.

Wrong:

The Founders DID NOT establish the Constitution for the purpose of granting rights. Rather, they established this government of laws (not a government of men) in order to secure each person's Creator­ endowed rights to life, liberty, and property.

Only in America, did a nation's founders recognize that rights, though endowed by the Creator as unalienable prerogatives, would not be sustained in society unless they were protected under a code of law which was itself in harmony with a higher law. They called it "natural law," or "Nature's law." Such law is the ultimate source and established limit for all of man's laws and is intended to protect each of these natural rights for all of mankind. The Declaration of Independence of 1776 established the premise that in America a people might assume the station "to which the laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them.."

We should dedicate ourselves to rediscovering and preserving an understanding of our Constitution's basis in natural law for the protec­tion of natural rights - principles which have provided American citizens with more protection for individual rights, while guaranteeing more freedom, than any people on earth.




National Center for Constitutional Studies

http://www.nccs.net/natural-law-the-ultimate-source-of-constitutional-law.php

wvit,

Oh gee...as long as we keep Republicans in charge...it will never become law...as Republicans believe in Freedom. Slightly on a different subject...what do you think about dictator obama's attempt too relinquish control of the internet to the UN? BTW...Republicans are at the forefront of blocking your dictator.

The  right to keep and bear arms is such a natural right, as is the right of free  speech, religious belief, and privacy.

If this is true, then why is there no mention of PRIVACY in the US Constitution?  Why have we NOT put forth a Privacy Amendment?
Such an obvious flaw in your statement makes the whole statement questionable at best, if not downright invalid.

go outside our country and try claiming your natural rights and see where it gets you.

Only America protects our natural rights as created by our founders.  You are forgetting our exceptionalism thanks to our founders, wvit.  But thanks for pointing out that outside of our borders, natural RIGHTS ARE NOT PROTECTED.

wvit believes in all-powerful governments but no god.

(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTemDWoEkq8yryQ9BIAne0S-t75tyPdRKBCEln0wSSbQZ9D5lFH) (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiD5qjn453NAhXG4yYKHSjLDncQjRwIBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F474989091919258137%2F&psig=AFQjCNFxRcy4L_qmlsKdhE6cr_yLuQxwJA&ust=1465659075683206)


DaBOZO the Right-Wingnut Ass Clown: We don't need some fucking foreigner telling us how to run things, or how to interpret our Constitution,,

Tell that to the "foreigners" on the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, you loud-mouthed, empty-headed, moron.

 Well  Wvitt ,,hawks and Jw dancing like a turned on faggot in a gay pride parade !!  This is not surprising ,,Never let them tell you they are not for taking away 2Nd Amendment rights again !



 How this will work out->  This is No surprise to us gun rights people ,, We expected this !  After all its Kotnholefornia !! and the 9Th circus court is the most liberal of all !

  what  will be the end result->???   That depends on the election ,,Now we know just how important elections can be ..If the Libs cant do it through the house and Senate They turn to activist Courts and Judges its always been that way!  We will need to win the White house and keep out majorities in the House and Senate..  Hitlery will appoint Judges who will overturn Heller  And then its open season on the 2Nd Amendment ,.

 From one of the Dissenting  Justices-

While a majority of the Ninth Circuit judges signed onto the decision to deny Californians their rights, three strongly-reasoned dissents, accounting for the opinions of four judges, called out the majority’s chicanery. The dissents correctly point out that it was the State, not the plaintiffs, who established the “concealed carry” permitting context of the case. The dissenting judges also would have explicitly held that responsible, law-abiding Americans certainly do have a right to “bear” arms in public for self-defense.  According to the dissent of Judge Conseulo M. Callahan (an appointee of President George W. Bush), the majority’s framing of the case was nothing more than “an elaborate straw man.”




So In Light of this power grab it more important than ever to vote this election  !In the final analysis, the majority opinion does perform one very important public service: It provides the clearest possible example of why liberty-loving Americans need to go to the polls this November and vote for those candidates who will preserve their Second Amendment rights. The consequences of failing to do so could not be clearer.



 Join the NRA and GOA and ==VOTE the libtards out !

how the car trunk gun business going down at the flea market HK?   

why would anyone have a problem with doing a background check on the person you're selling a gun to HK?

To: DaBoz, Dan, xwxzy321, sweetwater5s9, don't-blameme, sine-qua-non, Baretta19, chuck_curtis, stretch351c,Local5th, duke_john, jst-the-fax, and HK91-762mm

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/09/politics/concealed-carry-second-amendment/

We [Republicans ]own the House and Senate--[thats why elections count]  In light of this the only way Libs can enact gun control is through the courts -! Thats why we need to elect TRUMP !

Trumps taking the Senate down with him.  The House may go democrat to.

Once again the 9th Circuit showed how out of touch it is with mainstream Americans.  This decision will leave good people defenseless, as it completely ignores the fact that law-abiding Californians who reside in counties with hostile sheriffs will now have no means to carry a firearm outside the home for personal protection.

This flawed ruling underscores the importance of the 2016 election.

 It is imperative that we elect a President who will appoint Supreme Court justices who respect th
e
 Second Amendment and law
-
abiding citizens
’
 right to self-defense,

Ninth Circuit holds Second Amendment secures a right to carry a gun

So holds today’s Peruta v. County of San Diego (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2014) (http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/19/10-56971%20web.pdf). The court concludes that California’s broad limits on both open and concealed carry of loaded guns — with no “shall-issue” licensing regime that assures law-abiding adults of a right to get licenses, but only a “good cause” regime under which no license need be given — “impermissibly infringe[] on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.” The Ninth Circuit thus joins the Seventh Circuit...


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/13/ninth-circuit-holds-second-amendment-secures-a-right-to-carry-a-gun


They cannot make up their minds...

sweetwater5s9: So holds today’s Peruta v. County of San Diego (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2014) (http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/19/10-56971%20web.pdf).


sweetwater5s9,

 Notice the date? The topic here is the 9th Circuit Court's decision announced yesterday (9 June 2016).


HK91-762mm: Once again the 9th Circuit showed how out of touch it is with mainstream Americans.  This decision will leave good people defenseless, as it completely ignores the fact that law-abiding Californians who reside in counties with hostile sheriffs will now have no means to carry a firearm outside the home for personal protection.

HK91-762mm,

Evidently, you're out of touch with Scalia's opinion in Heller. His rewriting of the Second Amendment, which created an individual right to own firearms, allowed keeping a firearm (handgun?) in the home for self-defense. It said nothing about carrying concealed weapons in public. And, more important, Scalia emphasised that gun ownership and use can be regulated.

It is imperative that we elect a President who will appoint Supreme Court justices who respect the Second Amendment and law-abiding citizens' right to self-defense[.]

The Second Amendment reads in its entirety, "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."

Where do you and Scalia see any mention of self-defense?

 

 

 right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

9Th circus is the most overturned court---  Go Dance in your gay pride parade --!!

Encouraging suicide is a felony crime, JW2.  That's twice in three days you've done that.  You should be aware that the NSA has recorded your posts.

 Just ask him if he thinks the founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights to Mean individual rights ---Except they wrote the 2Nd Amendment to give the government the right to regulate Militias ==  Aint that right Hawks..

sine-qua-non: ...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.What does that mean to you. being written in plain English?


I asked HK91-762mm  to point out where the Second Amendment mentions self defense.  Your posting a  taken-out-of-context snippet of the Second Amendment does not define a right of self-defense.

Why do you say that people aren't individuals?


Haven't you noticed "people" isn't used in the Second Amendment. The termed  used is "the people." Those terms are not synonymous--they have entirely different meanings. And, furthermore, where did you get the illogical notion that people, the plural form of person, denotes an individual?


Stick that empty head of yours back up your ass where it belongs, and then go back to the eXcite funny farm where you belong.

You're exactly right.  One need not provide any justification for owning firearms.  We don't have to establish a need.

Ninth Circuit holds Second Amendment secures a right to carry a gun

So holds today’s Peruta v. County of San Diego (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2014) (http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/19/10-56971%20web.pdf). The court concludes that California’s broad limits on both open and concealed carry of loaded guns — with no “shall-issue” licensing regime that assures law-abiding adults of a right to get licenses, but only a “good cause” regime under which no license need be given — “impermissibly infringe[] on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.” The Ninth Circuit thus joins the Seventh Circuit...


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/13/ninth-circuit-holds-second-amendment-secures-a-right-to-carry-a-gun (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/13/ninth-circuit-holds-second-amendment-secures-a-right-to-carry-a-gun)


They cannot make up their minds...

the fact of the matter is the having a gun is not an unregulated right.  The USC has always said that gun regulations are not against the Constitutional rights of Americans.

Peruta v. San Diego

After an initial ruling which held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protected the right to carry a weapon, the court reheard the case en banc, ultimately upholding the lower court ruling, saying that "there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public."

The majority opinion was that there was an "overwhelming consensus" of historical case decisions establishing that there was never a time in history when courts believed that states could not prohibit concealed carry.


En banc

In law, an en banc session (French for "in bench") is a session in which a case is heard before all the judges of a court (before the entire bench) rather than by a panel selected from them. The equivalent terms in banc, in banco or in bank are also sometimes seen.

Peruta v. County of San Diego (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2014) (http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/19/10-56971%20web.pdf). The court concludes that California’s broad limits on both open and concealed carry of loaded guns — with no “shall-issue” licensing regime that assures law-abiding adults of a right to get licenses, but only a “good cause” regime under which no license need be given — “impermissibly infringes]on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.” The Ninth Circuit thus joins the Seventh Circuit...


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/13/ninth-circuit-holds-second-amendment-secures-a-right-to-carry-a-gun (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/13/ninth-circuit-holds-second-amendment-secures-a-right-to-carry-a-gun)


They got it right and Constitutional in 2014 as stated which agrees with the USSC.

Peruta v. San Diego County

On February 27, 2014 California Attorney General Kamala Harris filed a petition for en banc review of the decision. As the state was not a formal party of the case, her action is not an appeal, but merely a request that the full court re-hear the case en-banc on its own initiative. The court denied Harris' petition on November 12, 2014.[

On December 3, 2014, the Ninth Circuit announced that a judge on the circuit made a sua sponte call for a vote on whether the case should be reheard en banc. The court gave the parties, and any Amici curiae, 21 days to file briefs setting forth their positions whether the case should be reheard en banc.

On March 26, 2015, the Ninth Circuit announced that they will hear the case, along with Richards v. Prieto, en banc, including setting aside the original rulings in the cases and stating that they are not to be used as case law. The cases were argued on June 16, 2015.

On June 9, 2016, the en banc court affirmed the lower court ruling, saying that "there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public."

they've made up their minds now sweaty as the latest was based on all the judges hearing the particulars of the case and coming to a conclusion.

HK91-762mm: Just ask him if he thinks the founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights to Mean individual rights ---Except they wrote the 2Nd Amendment to give the government the right to regulate Militias ==  Aint that right Hawks..[sic]

HK91-762mm, First of all, Madison wrote the first ten amendments, not "the founding fathers." And apparently you haven't noticed that he used the term "the people"rather than " a person" (an individual).

The purpose and intent of those original constitutional amendments was to limit the power of the federal government, by protecting the rights of the people collectively--not as individuals-- against federal abuse. (When ratified, those amendments did not apply to the states.) It was not until ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment did the US Constitution specifically protect the rights of a person (individual).

The Second Amendment was never intended to protect an individual right of gun ownership, possession, and use. And it was never intended to protect a right of self defense. The states ratified that amendment with the understanding that it protected their federally-recognized militias from arbitrary abuse by federal officials. The great fear at the time was that the new, more powerful, federal government might pass laws that would interfere with a state's right to arm its legitimate militia. The Second Amendment prohibits any federal action to disarm state-controlled militias without due cause.

Finally, "the people," as used in the Second Amendment, is within the context of militia service--not private ownership of firearms. "To bear arms" means to serve as a soldier. It does not mean to own or carry firearms.

You cannot reason with the Left when they do not even understand simple English. They cannot understand "The right of the People to Keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed."
When language escapes them, reason is impossible.

thing about it is sweaty, it not a separate sentence the way you wrote it.  The second amendment says -


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.

sweetwater5s9: You cannot reason with the Left when they do not even understand simple English.

Your and HKlown's problem is that you don't understand plain English; and it's your lack of comprehension that prevents your ability to accept conclusions drawn fromreasonable (logical) arguments.

They cannot understand "The right of the [p]eople to [k]eep and ear arms shall not be infringed."

Evidently, it's you, HKlown-762mmoron, and the other gun fetishists in this forum who don't understand the meaning of that phrase in the Second Amendment, sweetwater5s9. Perhaps that's why you didn't attempt to explain it here. Isn't that right, sweetbullshitter5s9?

When language escapes them, reason is impossible.

I agree wholeheartedly. It's impossible to reason with ignoramuses like you and HK-762mmoron.

I've met many foreigners like hawk here and in international travel.  They are full of themselves and irrationally hate America for the principles upon which our country was founded.

sine-qua-non: "The [p]eople" is the collective term of "individual persons[.]" You have to change the definitions of plain English to blah blah blah blah blah blah.....




People. A word with many meanings. (The American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition gives nine). The people is a political term, not to be confused with the public.
___The Elements of Style by William Strunk and E.B. White, The Penguin Press, New York, 2005. pages 83-84.

people noun, plural  Humans considered as a group or in indefinite numbers. Often treated as a plural of person; the mass of ordinary persons, the populace.
___The American Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition, Houghton Miflin Harcourt, Boston and New York (2011)

No, sine-qua-non. "The people" is a political term, not a "collective term for individual persons."

Your post revels that you don't even understand what you post here 69Birdbrain!

Do you still think that the "Humans" or people is not composed of persons who are individuals?


Please, spare us you twisted logic and ignorance!

DaBOZO: You don't expect foreigners to grasp English or the Constitution do you,,,


"...do you,,,"

What language do you speak foreigner? It damn sure isn't English, you functional illiterate ass clown.


LOL

We come here to talk politics, American politics specifically.  We don't come here to practice the Queen's English.

Any American knows that.

simpleton-qua-nonsense: Your post revels that you don't even understand what you post here[,] 69Birdbrain[.]

Your misspelling of reveals proves your dumb ass is not qualified to pass judgement on me, you arrogant little bitch

Do you still think that the "Humans" or people is not composed of persons who are individuals? [sic]

I never made that asinine claim, that's what your moron ass's misinterpretation of what I said, you shit-for-brains ignoramus.


Please, spare us you [LOL] twisted logic and ignorance[.]

Here's what you can do, you mentally-challenged ass clown: you can either sit down and shut the fuck up, or you can take your bat-shit crazy ass back to your padded cell in  the eXcite mental ward.

duke_john: We come here to talk politics, American politics specifically.  We don't come here to practice the Queen's English. Any American knows that.

Here's what I know, DUMB_john: you and your right-wingnut pals never know what the fuck you're babbling about in this forum.

LOL

You have no idea what we're talking about because you don't understand our language and culture, foreigner.  Fuck off.

seems like hawk understands it better than you do duke.

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.
__Amendment II, US Constitution.

To: DaBoz, Dan, xwxzy321, sweetwater5s9, don't-blameme, sine-qua-non, Baretta19, chuck_curtis, stretch351c, and Local5th

At issue here is a federal appeals court's ruling that there's no "Second Amendment" right to Point out in the Second Amendment where it mentions an individual right to own, possess, or use fire arms, where it mentions carrying concealed weapons. And, of course, don't forget to point out where the Second Amendment prohibits governments--local, state, and federal--from enacting gun-control laws that regulate the ownership, possession an use of firearms. (In a 7-4 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment right to bear arms does not include carrying a concealed gun.)

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/09/481451209/federal-appeals-court-says-there-is-no-right-to-carry-concealed-weapons-in-publi

Personally, I feel there is little reason for concealed carry.  But, that should be a right decided by the individual.

And I bet you believe firearms shouldn't be regulated, that individuals should have the right todecide whether they can own automatic weapons. Right, deranged_john?

It is pretty obvious you have never fired an automatic weapon...have you hawkie?

 
Hey Judges, do you carry a concealed weapon?   
What?  You say you have a reason?
So, you think your lives are more valuable than mine or anyone else in this courtroom?
 

jst-the-fax: It is pretty obvious you have never fired an automatic weapon...have you hawkie?  [sic]


jst-the-fax,

Whether or not I've ever fired an automatic weapon is irrelevant. Explain why you believe the sale and ownership of firearms should not be regulated by governmental authority; explain why you believe individuals should be allowed to decide whether they carry automatic weapons in public places or own automatic weapons.

Sit down and shut the fuck up, hawk, you damned ass clown.

The boy is a gun grabber. No doubt about that.

But hopefully reason will eliminate the need for stronger actions.

BTW DaBoz, aren't you the pot calling the kettle black?  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)

Since California bans people from openly carrying guns, their decision amounted to prohibiting people from carrying guns at all (whether openly or concealed).

So far, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” includes the right to carry for self-defense (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO).  <--- link

Given this right, California’s prohibition of both open and concealed carry would be unconstitutional. But in this debate, the Bill of Rights has become secondary to political preferences.

This case is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court.  Whether people are allowed to defend themselves outside their homes in the eight relatively restrictive states such as California hangs in the balance with this election.




Concealed carry, California and the 9th Circuit’s misrepresentation of the facts

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/06/10/concealed-carry-california-and-truth-about-9th-circuit-s-ruling.html

telling you that you can't carry a loaded gun in public isn't taking away your rights.   

telling you that you can't carry a loaded gun in public isn't taking away your rights.   

Technically it is. That would be like allowing  gay marriage but not gay sex wouldn't it?

Or how about abortions that do not harm the fetus?

                                                                                                                                       

So far, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” includes the right to carry for self-defense (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO).  <--- link

Given this right, California’s prohibition of both open and concealed carry would be unconstitutional. But in this debate, the Bill of Rights has become secondary to political preferences.

The second amendment says we have the right to keep and bear arms.  To bear arms means to carry them. Some people cannot read English. And some do not want to understand it.

Local5th: No[.] That's not right. Constitutional rights may be limited but they cannot be eliminated[,] as done by this ruling.

You're confused again, Local5th. The ruling handed down by the 9th Circuit didn't eliminate the right to carry a concealed weapon; it says that carrying a concealed weapon was not a constitutional right protected by the Second Amendment. If a person provides the issuing authority a reasonable need to carry a concealed weapon, then that person has the legal right to be issued a concealed-carry weapon (CCW) permit. The 9th Circuit's ruling says a person can't demand a CCW permit by simply saying he or she has a "Second Amendment" right to carry a concealed weapon. There must be a reasonable need to carry a concealed weapon. 


A non-prohibited citizen has the constitutional right to bare carry a legal firearm.


But the court's ruling hinges on whether that so-called non-prohibited person  has a reasonable need to carry a firearm, which one would reasonably presume would be a legal firearm.

Local5th: The boy is a gun grabber. No doubt about that.

No, Local5th.Truth is, your argument has been refuted and there's no doubt about that.

The second amendment says we have the right to keep and bear arms.  To bear arms means to carry them. Some people cannot read English. And some do not want to understand it.
 
Right.  So this judge leaves only the option to open carry.  Which, as the 2nd amendment says, "we have the right to keep and bear arms.  To bear arms means to carry them."
 
Part of the purpose to conceal is to not cause panic among those pansy-assed milquetoasts who might faint at the sight. But this Judge has decided for them and told them they would have to look at all the guns being carried - and just get used to it.
 

jim: The econd [A]mendment says we have the right to keep and bear arms.  To bear arms means to carry them. Some people cannot read English. And some do not want to understand it.

Wrong, jivin' jim. As used in the Second Amendment, the term "to bear arms" means to serve as a soldier. Let's see if you can read the following English definition and are willing to understand it and, more important, willing to accept it and admit that you've been wrong all along.

to bear arms:

[LIST=1]

to
 
serve
 
as
 
a
 
member
 
of
 
the
 
military
 
or
 
of
 
contending
 
forces:
 



His
 
religious
 
convictions
 
kept
 
him
 
from
 
bearing
 
arms,
 
but
 
he
 
served
 
as
 
an
 
ambulance
 
driver
 
with
 
the
 
Red
 
Cross.



              [/list]
Source: dictionary.com

hawkie,

What happened to your rant?

Wrong, jivin' jim. As used in the Second Amendment, the term "to bear arms" means to serve as a soldier. Let's see if you can read the following English definition and are willing to understand it and, more important, willing to accept it and admit that you've been wrong all along.
 
Have you lost all senses?


A well regulated =  Well functioning

militia = Citizens who can come together as a group

being necessary to the security of a free State, = if needed to assist in fighting off outside threats or forces

the right of the People = Citizens
 
to keep and bear arms = to own 'and to carry'


"shall not be infringed."



Which part of "shall not be infringed" did you not understand?
 

 
To me, all this Judge is saying is that s/he wants everyone to OPEN carry.  And that's fine with me.
 

 
 
Or simply put:

Well functioning Citizens, who can come together as a group if needed, to assist in fighting off threats or forces - the Rights of Citizens to own and to carry (Guns) "shall not be infringed."

hawkshitforbrains is becoming more desperate as his rant falters and crumbles.

poor jim, now he's an export on jurisprudence. 

From what I understand it is up to the nine states these liberal loon activist judges rule over to decide about concealed carry but the 2nd Amendment prevents any laws being made about guns or being armed,..

The people trying to undermine the constitution should be treated as traitors to America and our values. They are anti-American trash who should be shunned as the scum they are..

in re: Reply #148

As used within the context of the Second Amendment, regulated means controlled or directed by rule, principle, or law. In the Second Amendment, "well regulated" means that for a militia to be protected by the Second Amendment must completely controlled by both the federal government and its respective state government, and in strict compliance with militia laws written by the federal congress. The Constitution makes no mention of so-called people militias, militias controlled by private citizens(civilians) and outside the control of governmental authority.

A militia is a part of the organised armed forces of a country liable to call only in an emergency. A militia is not simply an ad hoc group of persons who have "come together in a group."

The Second Amendment uses the phrase "necessary to" rather than "necessary for." The militia is understood to be reserve (part-time) troops, as opposed to active-duty troops serving in the nation's regular armed forces. As such, the militia's role is secondary to the regular armed forces, whose primary role is to provide national defense. The regular armed forces are necessary for national defense, the militia is necessary to it.

The Second Amendment uses the phrase "the right of the people " rather than "the right of people."The noun people means men, women, and children--human beings considered collectively or indefinitely, the mass of ordinary persons, the populace. it is generally used as a plural of person (an individual). In contrast, the people, is a political term used to describe a politically organised society or persons living in a politically organised society--a society controlled by governmental authority.

The Second Amendment does not say all "the people have the right to keep and bear arms." It specifically says the people have that right. Within the context of the Second Amendment, the term the people refers only to a very small portion of general population, namely, active members of a state's legitimate militia, a federally recognised militia in strict compliance with militia laws written by Congress--"a well-regulated militia."

As used in the Second Amendment, to keep does not mean" to own;" it means to maintain in good condition. Madison borrowed the wording from Article VI of the Articles of Confederation:

"Each State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and...."

The term to keep does not refer to private ownership of firearms; it refers to the efficiency of  "a well regulated militia,"

Furthermore, as used in the Second Amendment, the idiom "to bear arms" means to serve as a soldier. (And, by the way, the noun arms is denotes weapons especially used in warfare.) Troops bear arms; civilians carry firearms.

The verb infringe means to break the terms of a law, contract, treaty, agreement, etc. The Second Amendment is an agreement made between the states and the federal government. The states ratified the Second Amendment with the understanding that it precluded Congress from ever passing a law that interfered with a state's ability to arm its legitimate (federally recognised) militia. The Constitution allows the states to retain the militias they maintained under the Articles of Confederation and also allows the states to appoint its own militia officers. In return, the states gives Congress the exclusive right to arm and discipline their militias. The states ratified the Second Amendment on condition that the federal government would always honour that agreement and that federal officials would never violate the right of the people to render military service (bear arms) in their respective state militias without  due cause. The  text of the Second Amendment ends with the  declaration that the agreement--concerning the arming of state militias--made between the states and the federal government, "shall not be infringed," i.e., shall not be broken.



   

So the rest of the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to all the people?

Asinine and totalitarian!

hawkie,
You and your wife can post all the cut and paste from whatever source you wish... but I'll follow the decision of the Supreme Court.  Just like you believe the Court got it right in Roe v Wade.  Sound OK to you and Mrs.  Wvit?

the Court has never said gun ownership was an unregulated right.

The Court affirmed my right to self defense with a handgun. 

government doesn't have unregulated power.  you regulate government with your vote and through your voice in court.

The Federal court is a joke. . . as they've become a political tool of the Democrat party.

how'd they do that?  republicans have been in charge of congress for years and have been blocking nominations to the federal courts. 

Wvit says the ability to regulate is the ability to ban!

So, we can regulate free speech by banning it!

We can regulate religion by banning it (including Islam?)!

We can regulate privacy rights by banning them!

Wvit, do you feel foolish, yet?

Shame is not a word in wvit's vocabulary.

Neither is honesty.

jst-the-fax: You and your wife can post all the cut[-]and[-]paste from whatever source you wish, but I'll follow the decision of the Supreme Court.

jst-the-fax,

My post was a rebuttal to the hogwash in reply #148, a ridiculous interpretation of the meaning of the Second Amendment. And, furthermore, my post did not contain even a single piece of cut-and-pasted evidence. And, finally, don't bring up the Supreme Court's decision unless you can defend it.

A federal judge ruled that a key provision of the District’s new gun law is unconstitutional, ordering D.C. police to stop requiring individuals to show “good reason” to carry a firearm on the streets of the nation’s capital.

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon found that the law violates the “core right of self-defense” granted in the Second Amendment, setting aside arguments from District officials that the regulation is needed to prevent crime and protect the public.

“The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table,” Leon wrote in a 46-page opinion, quoting a Supreme Court decision in 2008 in another District case.


You can always amend the Constitution, hawk.   The process is also in the same document.

jst-the-fax: The Court affirmed my right to of self[-]defense with a handgun.

No, jst-the-fax. Truth is, here's what really happened: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's judicial activism created a phony Second Amendment right of self-defense with a handgun. 

“The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table,” Leon wrote in a 46-page opinion, quoting a Supreme Court decision in 2008 in another District case.

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon found that the law violates the “core right of self-defense” granted in the Second Amendment.


The federal judge ruled that a key provision of the District’s new gun law is unconstitutional, ordering D.C. police to stop requiring individuals to show “good reason” to carry a firearm in public.



You can always amend the Constitution, hawk.   The process is also in the same document.

hawks is not an American and hates the real freedoms the Constitution has granted us.

Local5th: Interesting. Activism created phony marriages and it's currently working on phony sexes to determine which bathrooms they can use. So what is your problem wit it granting the rest of us life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?


Local5th, what's always interesting to me is your attempt to substitute your flawed logic and unsound reasoning  for evidence and your penchant presenting your opinionated arguments as fact.


Same-sex  marriage  and transgender rights are based on the Fourteenth Amendment, not judicial activism. On the other hand,  nothing in the Second Amendment supports Scalia's judicial activism in Heller. Apparently, he simply pulled his opinion out his ass and riled from the bench. Miller stood for almost 70 years; Heller's days are numbered. And, finally, explain how you equate life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness with owning a weapon that kills roughly 30,000 persons in this country every year? Your babbling about life, liberty, and happiness here is not only empty rhetoric it's disingenuous as well.
;

But hawks it hasn't killed you yet so how do you explain that? Do you feel your days are in limited supply if those guns aren't banned hawks? What about knives or explosives or hammers or matches or spoons or forks, do you also feel threatened by them as well?

Jw2, Wvit and 1965hawks ably demonstrate the liberal hatred for individual rights and love of totalitarianism!

This is why liberals like Crooked Corrupt Hillary should never be allowed power of any kind!

Liberals always abuse power!

hawkie,

My State along with 49 others allow law abiding citizens the right of concealed carry. . . as many as six allow Constitutional carry. So do you believe your current federal government has enough man power to arrest and confiscate all law abiding citizens firearms...should Congress pass a prohibition on concealed Carry or maybe it would be safer arresting anyone selling pot in Colorado?

Local5th: That same weapon saves well over 30,000 lives per year[,] Hawk.

You're lying, Local5th. If you had credible evidence to support that ludicrous assertion, you would had presented it. But, not surprisingly, you just pulled another lie out your ass and expected critical readers in this forum to accept it without question.
And, by the way, your inane argument, equating the annual toll of gun deaths in the US with life(!), liberty, and the pursuit of happiness(!),  speaks volumes of your stupidity, ignorance, and dishonesty. And it's also another example of how you gun fetishists throw common sense out the window when you try to rationalise this country's epidemic gun violence.

jst-the-fax: My State along with 49 others allow law[-]abiding citizens the right [to carry concealed weapons.

That's in Wisconsin, jst-the-fax. This thread is about a federal appeal's court decision that applies to Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, and Arizona. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals correctly ruled that there's no Second Amendment right to carry concealed weapons.

Law abiding gun owners save a minimum of 392,500 lives annually!

Proving guns are not a public health problem but a contributor to good public health!

An average minimum of 1075 lives are saved by law abiding gun owners every day!

Fact: Every year, people in the United States use guns to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times –
    more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.(243) Of these instances, 15.7% of the people using firearms defensively
    stated that they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so.
Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives.

(243) Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Kleck and Gertz, Fall 1995
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6853&context=jclc

To: D2D
in re: Reply#180

http://www.oneutah.org/tag/kleck-de-bunkerd-kleck-debunked/

Byte, hawk is obsessed with disarming America from the enemies Obama brings into this country.

Another hate piece from 1965hawks featuring long since debunked and corrupt leftist studies with predetermined outcomes!

Studies that claim suicide and self defense are criminal acts despite the fact the LAW says otherwise!

Give it a rest, hawk.  You're nuts and we all know it.  Move on.

look back at reply 173 Bullwinkle.

You made a comment about weapons that kill 30,000 people a year and I said those same weapons save far more that 30,000 lives.

You do know don't you all rifles combined were used to commit 323 murders.

Your reading comprehension sucks.

hawk likes to challenge our English skills, knowing full well this is an informal posting site.

D2D: Studies that claim suicide and self defense are criminal acts despite the fact the law says otherwise[.]

What studies and laws are you citing, D2D? Currently there is no law against the act of committing suicide in the United States. And, furthermore, your argument conveniently ignores the fact that not all self-defense is justifiable.

By the way,D2D. Don't think I don't recognise your argument. What you're really here is presenting the same illogical argument you've made here several times before: your opinion that deaths caused by self-inflicted gunshot wounds (suicides), and deaths of persons shot dead while committing a crime, should not be counted as a death caused by gun violence and, therefore, should not be counted in the annual toll of over 30,000 lives lost to guns in the United States each year. 

 furthermore, your argument conveniently ignores the fact that not all self-defense is justifiable.

Name one instance where self defense is not justifiable bullwinkle..

hawkie,

didn't 4 other justice also agree that defense with a handgun is a Constitutional Right?

To: jst-the-fax and Local5th
in re: Replies #194 and #195

http://nchchonors.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Gray-Alan-Final-Paper.pdf

 http://prospect.org/article/justice-scalias-dueling-opinions

Even the study ordered by Obama shows guns save lives. Look it up yourself.

No I have never heard of unjustified self defense. But I have heard of unjustified claims of self defense.

Give it up, hawk, you obsessed idiot.

Precedence has been set. The Second Amendment will rightfully stand as has since it was written.

Yes it will WMDN.

Another hate piece from 1965hawks featuring long since debunked and corrupt leftist studies with predetermined outcomes!

Studies that claim suicide and self defense are criminal acts despite the fact the LAW says otherwise!

To: wmdn_bs and Local5th
in re: Replies #199 and #200

At issue is not whether the Second Amendment will stand but whether or not that amendment will be interpreted as originally written.

"A fraud on the American public." That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment

So if the USSC rules the First Amendment doesn't apply to the people you will simply accept it?

Local5th: Even the study ordered by Obama shows guns save lives.

Local5th, you're attacking a straw man. I never argued that guns don't save lives, my argument is your claim that guns save more lives than they take is not backed by credible evidence. All you done so far is present anecdotal evidence and opinionated arguments.   

I have already proven you wrong, 1965hawks!

Law abiding gun owners save a minimum of 392,500 lives annually!

Proving guns are not a public health problem but a contributor to good public health!

An average minimum of 1075 lives are saved by law abiding gun owners every day!

Fact: Every year, people in the United States use guns to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times –
    more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.(243) Of these instances, 15.7% of the people using firearms defensively
    stated that they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so.
Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives.

(243) Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Kleck and Gertz, Fall 1995
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6853&context=jclc

MISCELLANEOUS STATISTICS
Number of firearms in America: Between 223,000,000 (527) and 290,000,000 (528)
Number of firearm owning households: At least 50,600,000 (529)
Projected firearm owning households in America: 60-85 million
Number of guns used in crimes: 450,000 (530)
Percentage of guns used in crimes: 0.09%

(527) Guns Used in Crime, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Marianne W. Zawitz, 1995.
(528) Small Arms Survey, Graduate Institute of International Studies, 2008
(529) Surveys show a “reported” ownership rate of 46%, but it is universally believed that these surveys under-reported
      (i.e., people that own firearms don’t want to admit so to a pollster). This is validated by surveys performed by the
      National Opinion Research Center. They perform their surveys face-to-face at the respondent’s home, and routinely
      have reported gun ownership rates 3-6% lower than telephone based surveys.
(530) Ibid.

even the NRA won't reference that stupid Kleck study d2.  Why do you and sweaty like it so much?

I have already proven you wrong, 1965hawks!

Law abiding gun owners save a minimum of 392,500 lives annually!

Proving guns are not a public health problem but a contributor to good public health!

An average minimum of 1075 lives are saved by law abiding gun owners every day!

Fact: Every year, people in the United States use guns to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times –
    more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.(243) Of these instances, 15.7% of the people using firearms defensively
    stated that they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so.
Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives.

(243) Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Kleck and Gertz, Fall 1995
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6853&context=jclc (http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6853&context=jclc)

MISCELLANEOUS STATISTICS
Number of firearms in America: Between 223,000,000 (527) and 290,000,000 (528)
Number of firearm owning households: At least 50,600,000 (529)
Projected firearm owning households in America: 60-85 million
Number of guns used in crimes: 450,000 (530)
Percentage of guns used in crimes: 0.09%

(527) Guns Used in Crime, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Marianne W. Zawitz, 1995.
(528) Small Arms Survey, Graduate Institute of International Studies, 2008
(529) Surveys show a “reported” ownership rate of 46%, but it is universally believed that these surveys under-reported
    (i.e., people that own firearms don’t want to admit so to a pollster). This is validated by surveys performed by the
    National Opinion Research Center. They perform their surveys face-to-face at the respondent’s home, and routinely
    have reported gun ownership rates 3-6% lower than telephone based surveys.
(530) Ibid.

“The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table,” Leon wrote in a 46-page opinion, quoting a Supreme Court decision in 2008 in another District case.

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon found that the law violates the “core right of self-defense” granted in the Second Amendment.


The federal judge ruled that a key provision of the District’s new gun law is unconstitutional, ordering D.C. police to stop requiring individuals to show “good reason” to carry a firearm in public.



You can always amend the Constitution, hawk.   The process is also in the same document.

At issue is not whether the Second Amendment will stand but whether or not that amendment will be interpreted as originally written.


This may be a very foreign concept, but the first fight over the Second Amendment wasn’t over whether the population should be armed. All the framers agreed with that. The fight was between federalists and anti-federalists over whether we would have a standing army.
The Anti-federalists―among them George Mason, Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams―were militant advocates of the inclusion of a bill of rights in the Constitution because they did not trust the power of the federal government to be restrained.

Don Kates, a scholar of the constitution and Second Amendment, points out that, “During the ratification debate, the Federalists vehemently denied that the federal government would have the power to infringe freedom of expression, religion, and other basic rights—expressly including the right to arms. In this context, Madison secured ratification by his commitment to support and to safeguard the fundamental rights that all agreed should never be infringed.”

In short, the federalists—including men like John Jay, James Madison and George Washington—wanted the Second Amendment because they believed a strong federal government would be able to control a standing army.
And the anti-federalists wanted it because it would mean every able-bodied man in America would be armed in the event that the federal government or America’s own standing army turned on its own people.

http://truthinmedia.com/reality-check-intent-second-amendment/

The Founding Fathers, having just broken away from Great Britain, understood the new federal government they were ratifying might one day become just as tyrannical. If it had the authority to control citizen access to firearms, then it could disarm them, just as the British attempted to do. This would make any attempts to restore liberties futile.


The Second Amendment was specifically included in the Bill of Rights to prevent this.


Two centuries later, we are in an ideological struggle with gun control advocates attempting to alter the meaning of the Second Amendment in order to allow for federal restrictions on our right to bear arms. Not surprisingly, they completely ignore what the ratifiers of the Constitution and the Second Amendment had to say, because all pertinent historical documents contradict them.


For example, when the Founders wrote of a “well regulated” militia, they meant militias needed to be well regulated through training and drilling in order to be effective in battle. This could only happen if citizens had unrestricted access to firearms.


James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said in 1789 that “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”


An example of a well regulated militia under Madison’s definition were the Minutemen at Concord and Lexington, who had drilled on fields in preparation for war.


As to the meaning of the word “militia,” it has nothing to do with the National Guard. There is already a clause in the Constitution that specifically authorizes arming them.


So what is a militia as defined by the Founders? Mason said they were “the whole people, except for a few public officials.”


In fact, there was a universal acceptance among both federalists and anti-federalists as to the importance of the right to bear arms.


Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 28 that “if the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense,” a right which he declared to be “paramount.”


And then there is clause “shall not be infringed.” There is no exception to this contained anywhere in the amendment.


Zacharia Johnson, a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, summed up the meaning of the Second Amendment when he declared that “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”


Full possession. Not some. Not most. Full possession of their weapons. The feds were to keep their hands off entirely.


The Founders made it very clear what the Second Amendment means. But if we do not fight against any and all attempts by the feds to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms, then it loses all relevant meaning.


http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/09/22/2nd-amendment-original-meaning-and-purpose/


http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf

The Strongest Possible Restrictive Language
First and Second Amendment protections were always given the very strongest possible restrictive language – no law shall be passed – shall make no law – inviolable – not be deprived or abridged – not be restrained - shall not be infringed - nor shall the right be infringed - shall make no laws touching - shall make no laws to infringe.

The Second Amendment's “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" language was clearly not intended to allow for extensive reasonable regulation. Rather, it was intended to prevent all laws and regulations that would result in the people being deprived, abridged, restrained, narrowed, or restricted in the exercise of their fundamental right to keep and bear arms.


David E. Young Constitutional scholar and recognized authority on Founding Era Second Amendment developmental history and documents.


More @

http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/index.php?topic=227956.msg1877610#msg1877610

D2D: So if the USSC rules the First Amendment doesn't apply to the people you will simply accept it?

Your babbling about the First Amendment here is a red herring, D2D. The Issue here is the Second Amendment and the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' correct opinion that there's nothing in the wording of that amendment that affords a right to carry concealed weapons.

Now here's a question for you, D2D: If the SCOTUS were to overturn Scalia's flawed opinion in Heller v. District of Columbia and rule that the Second Amendment applies to the Militia and not to all the people, as every high court had done before Heller, would you accept that decision?

 

Yet the 2nd  doesn't say anything about concealed carry or that only a militia can carry arms

Your and your commie friends are making up  shit which means you all have shit for brains

Give it a break, hawk.  Engaging in suppositions is preposterous.

No red herring involved 1965hawks!

The simple fact is the Bill of Rights applies to the people!

Strip the people of one part of the Bill of Rights you can strip the people of all of the Bill of Rights!

 
I will gladly answer your question when you answer mine!

So if the USSC rules the First Amendment doesn't apply to the people you will simply accept it?

What is the purpose of the proposed "assault weapons" ban?

What will stop democrats stripping the rest of the Bill of Rights from the people?

D2D: No red herring involved 1965hawks [.] The simple fact is the Bill of Rights applies to the people.

D2D, as is always the case, you really don't understand the point you're trying to argue. The states ratified the original (first ten) amendments to the Constitution with the understanding that it applied only to the federal government; the original purpose and intent of Amendments one through ten is to limit the power of the federal government, by protecting the people, collectively, against federal abuse.

Strip the people of one part of the Bill of Rights you can strip the people of all of the Bill of Rights.

D2D, as originally understood and ratified by the states, the Second Amendment protected the right of a state to arm its official militia by making militia service a right of the people and forbidding Congress to infringe upon that right. Private ownership of firearms was never the issue. That original understanding was changed by the NRA to fit its anti-regulation agenda and finally given credibility by Scalia's judicial activism in Heller v. District of Columbia. Your empty rhetoric is nothing more than another of your red herrings.

Now 1965hawks is claiming the people have no rights under the Bill of Rights!

Keep on goose stepping, 1965hawks!

No where does the 2nd Amendment mention the states!

Only the people are mentioned as having rights!

D2D: Now 1965hawks is claiming the people have no rights under the Bill of Rights[.]

There you go again, D2D. Attributing your lies to me.

Keep on goose stepping, 1965hawks!

I'm not a "goose-stepper," but you're a pathological liar, D2D.

No where does the 2nd Amendment mention the states[.]

When Madison wrote the Second Amendment everybody American who read it understood the term militia to mean a state-controlled military organisation. And, furthermore, they also under that the purpose and intent of the Second amendment was to protect the arms of state militia's from arbitrary abuse by federal officials.

Only the people are mentioned as having rights[.]

D2D, if you really understood the wording of the second Amendment, you would know "the people," as used in the Second Amendment refers to active members of state-controlled militia's, not all the people.And you would also understand that the Second Amendment makes bearing arms (militia service) a right of the people and forbids the federal government from ever infringing upon the right of the people to serve in their state's  federally organized militias. That right applied only to active members of the Militia; it did not extend to private citizens (civilians), because civilians do not bear arms (serve as soldiers).

 

Nowhere in the Second Amendment does it mention the States!

The Second Amendment says the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

It does NOT say the Militia's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

You have to pardon hawk.  He doesn't read English very well (although he loves to find fault in other people's informal writing).

What is the purpose of the proposed "assault weapons" ban?


to keep military grade lethal weapons out of the hands of people who want to kill other citizens.

You are confusing method with purpose or benefit!

How does society benefit from banning "assault rifles"?

Military grade lethal weapons are regulated by the BATFE.  You have to get a class III license to own one and pay hefty taxes along with other stipulations.

To: D2D
in re: Reply #220

See reply " 219

To: duke_john
in re: Reply #221

Do what Scalia was unable to do. Point out exactly in the Second Amendment where it defines an individual right of civilians to own and possess firearms for their personal use--like carrying concealed weapons, for example. And since you brought up the English language, make sure you present your explanation in plain English so it can be clearly understood (and debunked).

How does society benefit from banning "assault rifles"?

Let me sum it up for you, hawk: you're fucking nuts and, because you lost, can't let it go.

And don't pretend you have no fucking clue what I said.

Gun control advocates still insist on behaving as if the Second Amendment does not mean what it says.

The Constitutional Accountability Center, a respected liberal think tank and law firm "dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of our Constitution's text and history," filed (http://theusconstitution.org/cases/briefs/mcdonald-v-city-chicago/supreme-court-amicus-brief-mcdonald-v-city-chicago) an amicus brief at the Supreme Court in the 2010 gun rights case McDonald v. Chicago. As that brief plainly (and accurately (https://reason.com/archives/2012/02/02/libertarians-guns-and-federalism)) stated, "the original meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause [of the 14th Amendment] protected substantive, fundamental rights against state infringement, including the constitutional right of an individual to keep and bear arms."


http://reason.com/blog/2015/10/06/yes-the-second-amendment-protects-indivi

The claim that       the Amendment's language is limited to maintaining organized government militias       only developed in the 20th century.

 The liberalization of concealed carry laws has the effect       of reducing crime rather than increasing it because criminals       are deterred from attacking people when they risk facing a gun.       He cited the recent shootings at Appalachian Law School in Grundy       in which the killer dropped his gun when confronted by another       student with a gun, noting ruefully that neither the Washington       Post nor New York Times reporting included this detail about how       the killer surrendered.

http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2001_02/amendment.htm

Just a few word changes will show the true intent of why our forefathers gave us the 2nd amendment.


"Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

http://freedomsback.com/cartoons/disarming-america/

(http://freedomsback.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Black-Market-Guns-600-nrd.jpg)

Now Hidebeast is calling handguns ' assault weapons' (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/huh.gif)

Like 69Birdbrain here they just make up stuff to suit there antiConstitution antiAmerican agenda

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court rejected (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290) the view that the Second Amendment only applied to militias. For the first time, the Court held that the Second Amendment conveyed an individual right to gun ownership and that to protected possession of guns in the home. Prior to Heller, the court in US v. Miller (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174) limited Second Amendment protection only to weapons useful to militias for American citizens.

 The court conducted a more thorough review in Heller and found handguns to be protected by the historical extent of the Second Amendment's purpose, and struck down the DC's ban. It also struck down the city's trigger-lock mandate because it rendered guns in the home useless for the self-defense purpose protected by the individual right.

The Court found in McDonald v. Chicago that the individual right pronounced by Heller was incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment and fully applied to the states. The plurality of the Court reasoned the Second Amendment right from Heller applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv)'s Due Process Clause (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process). Justice Thomas, who concurred in part and concurred in judgment, reasoned that Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges and Immunities Clause (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/privileges_and_immunities_clause) applied Heller's to the states.

Many states offer concealed carry permit reciprocity. Such reciprocity is authorized (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv#section1) under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution.

Circuit courts found state or local permit laws requiring more evidence than a general concern for self-defense to be unconstitutional. Writing for the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Moore v. Madigan, Judge Posner found (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=moore+v.+madigan&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39&case=10665754353092136977&scilh=0) Illinois' specific evidence of a threat requirement to be an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment. For Judge Posner, American history prior to ratification of the Second Amendment supported finding that the right to self-defense exists outside the home. The opinion critiqued opinions upholding such requirements as mistakenly interpreting the right to self-defense as a right tied to property instead of the person: "It is not a property right - a right to kill a houseguest who in a fit of aesthetic fury tries to slash your copy of Norman Rockwell's painting Santa with Elves." The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Peruta v. County of San Diego held (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=peruta+v.+county+of+san+diego&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39&case=16699306652731612622&scilh=0) unconstitutional a San Diego county requirement for specific evidence after analyzing the history of the Second Amendment and the precedent established by Heller and McDonald.




JURIST Legal News & Research Services, Inc.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court rejected (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290) the view that the Second Amendment only applied to militias. For the first time, the Court held that the Second Amendment conveyed an individual right to gun ownership and that to protected possession of guns in the home. Prior to Heller, the court in US v. Miller (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174) limited Second Amendment protection only to weapons useful to militias for American citizens.

 The court conducted a more thorough review in Heller and found handguns to be protected by the historical extent of the Second Amendment's purpose, and struck down the DC's ban.

sweetwater5s9,

The Second Amendment reads in its entirety as follows:

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.

Point out exactly in the Second Amendment where Scalia found that the Second Amendment "conveyed an individual right to gun ownership" and that it protected "ownership of guns in the home." What "thorough review" did a majority of the high court conduct to find handguns--kept at home for self-defense--is somehow protected by the "historical extent of the Second Amendment's purpose?"  In US history, purpose and intent of the Second Amendment was the preservation and efficiency of the Militia, which provides the common defense. Point out exactly in the Second Amendment where it protects privately owned firearms kept at home--or carried concealed--for self-defense.   

 In US history, purpose and intent of the Second Amendment was the preservation and efficiency of the Militia, which provides the common defense. Point out exactly in the Second Amendment where it protects privately owned firearms kept at home--or carried concealed--for self-defense.





Article !!, Section II places state militias and federal military under control of the president to provide for the common defense.

The fear was these forces could be used against the people, same as England used them against us brought about the 2nd amendment. It was basically a compromise between those who wanted no standing armies and those who believed they were necessary for the protection of our country. Checks and balances.



                                                                                                                                        

Does anyone have a tranquilizer dart they can shoot into hawk?

Local5th: Article !! Article II, Section II Section 2[,]places state militias and federal military under control of the president to provide for the common defense.

The fear was these forces could be used against the people, same as England used them against us brought about the 2nd amendment. It was basically a compromise between those who wanted no standing armies and those who believed they were necessary for the protection of our country. Checks and balances.

The Ant-federalist used every fear-mongering argument imaginable to turn the people against the newly proposed Constitution and, in turn, the people would order delegates to state ratifying conventions not to ratify the prosed Constitution and allow the Articles of Confederation to remain in effect. The fear-mongering of the Anti-federalists failed to dissuade the people thanks in large part to the authors of the Federalist, essays that carefully explained the Constitution and assuage the fears of the populace. End the end, the main objection to the Constitution was that it lacked a bill of rights. The states ratified the Constitution on condition that a bill of rights would be added. Madison promised to add one; the states ratified the Constitution; Madison kept his promise.

The people did not really fear a standing army. What they feared was a standing army not controlled by civilians. And to argue that the Second Amendment was included in the Constitution to prevent the rise of a tyrannous government is illogical: the Constitution makes the people themselves sovereign and allows them to either elect or remove from office their political superiors. 

 

Give us a break, hawk.  You lost.  Fucking move on.

Local5th, (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/hattip.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/emo_hattip.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/sarcasmics/107w9oy.gif)

The claim that the 2nd Amendment's language is limited to maintaining organized government militias only developed in the 20th century.   Why?

Bull,  Shawks.  That ammendment was passed to protect the citizens against a tyrany government, lnot for a government army.

hawk lacks the most basic understanding of why there was an American Revolution.

Let it go, hawk, you lost.

Read your history Bullwinkle. Standing armies are covered in another section of the constitution. The 2nd amendment was made a part of The Bill of Rights to provide greater constitutional protection for individual liberties.

Local5th: Read your history. Standing armies are covered in another section of the [C]onstitution. The 2nd [A]mendment  was made a part of included in [t]he Bill of Rights to provide greater constitutional protection for individual liberties.

Local5th, first of all , I'm not citing "my" history. I'm citing US history and the history of the US Constitution. Secondly, the Second Amendment, in actuality, confirms a state's right to maintain an armed militia under the Constitution as it had under the Articles of Confederation. Thirdly, the individual right afforded in the Second Amendment is the right to serve (bear arms) in a state's official militia,--not the right of an individual to carry firearms (openly or concealed) for his or her personal (private) use.

Shut the fuck up, hawkshit.  YOU LOST.

Non one is impressed with your efforts to point out a spelling or grammar error, especially when your whole fucking premise is ridiculous.

Again, 1965hawks says the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the people!

He keeps on goose stepping along!

In the court’s majority opinion (http://www.nraila.org/media/10814375/stevensopinion.pdf), Judge Richard Posner wrote that the United States Supreme Court “has decided that the [Second] Amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside.”

As PoliceOne Columnist Ron Avery observed in his excellent column, Dealing with citizens legally carrying a concealed weapon (http://www.policeone.com/police-products/firearms/articles/2144601-Dealing-with-citizens-legally-carrying-a-concealed-weapon/), “Concealed carry folks and cops seem to go to the same tailor — generally speaking, most will not look like dirt bags... They don’t generally have the crotch of their pants at knee height or wear their baseball hat cocked at a ridiculous angle.”

https://www.policeone.com/police-trainers/articles/6062966-Do-legally-armed-citizens-prevent-crime/ (https://www.policeone.com/police-trainers/articles/6062966-Do-legally-armed-citizens-prevent-crime/)

To: sweetwater5s9
in re: Replies #230 and #242

Which source of misinformation are you citing? Where did you get the erroneous notion that the militia-interpretation of the Second Amendment originated in the 20th century? You're talking out your ass again, sweetwater5s9.

In Presser v. Illinois (1886) the Supreme Court upheld an Illinois law that prohibited any group other than the regular organized  volunteer militia of the state to drill or parade with arms. The Court unanimously ruled that the Second Amendment applied only to acts of the federal government, and did not prevent the state from restricting association in a paramilitary organization or regulating or prohibiting drilling or parading with arms.

Tom Pendergast, Sara Pendergast, and John Sousanis, Constitutional Amendments: From Freedom of Speech to Flag Burning, Volume 1: Amendments 1-8 (2001), p. 145   

hawkie,
Can the government regulate free speech to prevent me from being critical of a sitting President... as they (in your world) can regulate my 2nd Amendment right of self defense?

you've never had an unregulated right to free speech or to own a gun.

wvit
My question to Mrs wvit-hawkie was: can the US government regulate my criticism of a sitting President?

depends on where you're doing it at.  Try walking onto the White House grounds and criticizing the president with a bullhorn and see what happens.

jst-the-fax: Can the government regulate free speech to prevent me from being critical of a sitting [p]resident[?] they [Because] (in your world) [it] can regulate my 2nd Amendment right of self defense?

sweetwater5s9,

If the government had power to prevent someone from simply being critical of a federal official, then Lindbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, and all the other right-wing, anti-government speilmeisters would had been taken off the airwaves along time ago.

I can't to respond to last part of your post because it's ambiguous: you didn't explain the difference between "the right of self-defense" and the "Second Amendment right of self-defense."

Those who think the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Miller was a broad-based general ruling which gave the government license to restrict Americans’ civil right to be armed – should also accept the Court's ruling, and revoke unconstitutional bans on:

♦ new manufacture of fully-automatic and semi-automatic military-type firearms;
♦ the new manufacture of detachable ammunition holders (magazines), especially those types of magazines which are standard U.S. military issue
♦ possession and sale of armor-piercing ammunition.



These types of firearms, accessories, and ammunition are precisely those most suitable for military and militia use. and have been so issued by the Federal government to U.S. armed forces. The Court held that the keeping and bearing ofsuch firearms was explicitly protected by the Second Amendment.


documents listed @

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/miller.htm (http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/miller.htm)

Anyone know who "Lindbaugh" is?

I know what duke_john is doing: he's attacking a straw man.

LOL

Say what you mean and mean what you say, dingleberry.  If you meant "Limbaugh," then write "Limbaugh."

Shawks, is that why Scalia was murdered?   It was said he had a pillow over his face when found.