Court: No right to carry concealed weapons in public

[duke_john]

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.

[sweetwater5s9]

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 an amicus brief at the Supreme Court in the 2010 gun rights case McDonald v. Chicago. As that brief plainly (and accurately) 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

[sweetwater5s9]

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

[Local5th]

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."

[D2D]

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

[sine-qua-non]

Now Hidebeast is calling handguns ' assault weapons'

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

[sweetwater5s9]

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court rejected 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 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's Due Process Clause. Justice Thomas, who concurred in part and concurred in judgment, reasoned that Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges and Immunities Clause applied Heller's to the states.

Many states offer concealed carry permit reciprocity. Such reciprocity is authorized 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 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 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.

[1965hawks]

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court rejected 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 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.   

[Local5th]

 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.



                                                                                                                                        

[duke_john]

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

[1965hawks]

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. 

 

[duke_john]

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