• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Uncooperative Tom

2nd Amendment: In the home only?

660 posts in this topic

This is a hijack ongoing in the "shitcago" thread, but really the issue is bigger than just the current crime problem in Chicago.

 

The 7th Circuit, in a 2 to 1 decision in Moore vs Madigan, has just told Chicago that the second amendment must be applied outside the home. Chicago's position had been that it only applies within the actual residence, not the porch or garage.

 

My question for the reasonable gun controllers around here who at least claim to believe the second amendment is OK:

 

Do you believe it should apply outside of homes at all? Or do we only have a right to bear arms within our residences?

 

I'm interested in whether the porch or garage would be OK, but I assume most of you will agree it is. Maybe I assume too much, so please correct me if you are on Chicago's side of that one.

 

How about off your property? Should we have second amendment rights when out in public?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The third amendment is the only one I can think of that only applies to the inside of homes because it was written to apply only to the inside of homes.

 

The second amendment says we have a right to bear arms, but does not restrict that right to the inside of homes. That is an invention of Chicago's anti-gun politicians, who applied the most narrow possible interpretation of the Heller and McDonald decisions: one handgun only, only inside the actual residence, not any attached garage, porch, or outbuildings.

 

I find that an intolerably narrow interpretation of the second amendment and wonder if any gun control advocates agree with me, or would like to explain to me why I'm wrong.

 

Cue crickets...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As with most posts in PA. The following is written such that its best delivery would be Khrushchev style at a podium while repeatedly whacking that podium with the hard leather shoe.

 

khrushchev_shoe1.jpg

 

Go ahead, stand up, take a deep breath and read it aloud.

 

I made the print bigger so you could have room between yourself and the monitor

 

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0

 

 

You guys are all so hung up on the extraneous arguments you are entirely missing my point.

 

1. The wording is VERY clear.

2. Various people with various agendas claim the wording can be bent in various directions depending upon the particular agenda of the individual.

3. Pretty much any junior high school kid who can ace English classes could re-write the 2nd amendment to suit the wishes of any of the bajillion folks who have an individual view of what it OUGHT to say.

 

As written, the 2nd Amendment is insufficient for virtually ANY holder of ANY agenda to logically enforce a modern day particular interpretation.

The Constitution has a described proper procedure for modification and that procedure does not include the words, "or when we just don't look at things that way anymore."

 

Therefore:

Infringed is a pretty simple word. The campaign for gun control must start with an amendment to the constitution.

 

WHY??

 

Because until you get off your freaking asses, line up 66.66666666% of us behind you, and modify the document so those you call "jerks on the other side" can no longer use the "poorly written and vague" second amendment to block your path, YOU WILL NOT ACCOMPLISH YOUR GOAL!!!!!

 

 

 

It ONLY takes two thirds of the states to modify the Constitution. If you want to write gun laws, write up a reasonable amendment that exactly clarifies what sort of arms ownership MAY be infringed and for what reason and get the Constitution modified AGAIN so we can operate this place for the next couple centuries.

 

OR

 

You can continue to waste billions of dollars bickering about militias, hunting rifles, machine guns, trigger functions, ammunition supply systems, education, felonies, age, mental stability, and trying to get past judges who comprehend the meaning of the word INFRINGED.

 

************************************************

 

Politicians are welcome to use the above speech while adressing whatever audience might actually be persuaded to make an honest effort to rationally approach issues related to when and for what reason we might ever decide to legally infringe upon individual posession of weapons in our society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so if it cannot be infringed,

 

then any madman

child (or slave, or even, gasp, woman)

corporation

etc

 

should have access to whatever you define as an "arm"

 

if it really is all or nothing as you propose...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have posted numerous times the limitations on the second amendment right set forth in the Heller decision, which make clear that it is far from "all or nothing" as you and Gouv seem to believe. Like the rest of our rights, it has limits and exceptions. "Fire" in a theater and certain electioneering communications and all that.

 

If you can find a post where I have proposed it is all or nothing, by all means post it, but I believe this is yet another of your baseless characterizations of what I think, Mitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My position is that laws and rules of games are ALWAYS absolutes. it is the absolute nature of them that makes it possible to apply those rules fairly and without prejudice.

I am among the crowd who believes it would be a really great idea to figure out a way to stop people from shooting each other.

Currently, by definition, the government cannot make any effort to do so which involves infringement.

 

To those who wish to do a measured amount of infringement, I repeatedy explain>

THERE IS A PROPER PROCESS.

1. Adjust the Constitution so infringement is legal

2. Legislate the infringements

 

 

We will just ignore the words we find to be inconvenient" is NOT how the law works.

 

additional:

For those of you who believe the "screaming fire in the theater" example is one describing an abridgement of free speech I must burst your bubble.

There is no law against yelling Fire at any time anyplace. Our free speech remains unabridged.

There are laws against causing people to stampede, inciting riots, disturbing the peace, and a myriad of other behavioral rules and regulations having to do with survival of the community.

The First Amendment has no restrictions about holding individuals responsable for the consequences of their free speech.

 

 

Just like you can't go around killing people with your stash of uninfringed arms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are at least 2 approaches to the constitution

 

Literal

 

and I'll call another one the "guiding principal" approach. There are likely others.

 

not everyone believes in a literal interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no law against yelling Fire at any time anyplace. Our free speech remains unabridged.

There are laws against causing people to stampede, inciting riots, disturbing the peace, and a myriad of other behavioral rules and regulations having to do with survival of the community.

 

If speech causes people to stampede, and if such speech is against the law, how can you say that speech is not being abridged? It obviously is being abridged.

 

Want to try limits on electioneering communications? Those also abridge free speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are at least 2 approaches to the constitution

 

Literal

 

and I'll call another one the "guiding principal" approach. There are likely others.

 

not everyone believes in a literal interpretation.

 

No, so far you and Gouv seem to be the only ones. Certainly Justice Scalia does not...

 

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No there is no right to carry outside the home. Doing so infringes on my inalienable right to life liberty and the pursuit of happines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no law against yelling Fire at any time anyplace. Our free speech remains unabridged.

There are laws against causing people to stampede, inciting riots, disturbing the peace, and a myriad of other behavioral rules and regulations having to do with survival of the community.

 

If speech causes people to stampede, and if such speech is against the law, how can you say that speech is not being abridged? It obviously is being abridged.

 

Want to try limits on electioneering communications? Those also abridge free speech.

 

It is not the speech which is abridged. You can yell fire in a crowded theater any time you damn well please and not break any law.

 

If you yell fire and casue a stampede by doing so, you are responsable for that which you caused.

 

We cannot prosecute a guy for saying words. We can prosecute for lying, inciting, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brady Campaign proposal to infringe on the 2nd. Seems pretty reasonable. I like the removal of the liability and the safety exemption.

 

 

 

 

 

Brady Campaign Releases Policy Recommendation Made to White House Task Force

 

Jan 11, 2013

 

Washington, DC – The Brady Campaign has been working closely with the Vice President’s Task Force on Guns. On Wednesday, Brady Campaign President Dan Gross accompanied by a group of families of victims of gun violence, met with the task force to discuss a set of policy recommendations. Today they are releasing a summary of these recommendations, which reflect the comprehensive approach supported by the Brady Campaign.

“We believe in the approach being taken by the Vice President. There is no one answer to preventing gun violence. It is a complex problem that deserves a comprehensive set of solutions,” said Gross. “The recommendations we are presenting to the White House reflect what we believe are the changes that can have the biggest impact right away. We cannot wait any longer. The American public wants this conversation to be taking place, but more importantly, they want action. We believe that as a nation we are better than this, and our recommendations can make a real difference.”

 

Brady Campaign Platform for Reducing Gun Violence in America

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence believes in a comprehensive approach to reducing gun violence in our nation, including both

  • policy to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous people,
  • and public health and safety programs to inspire safer attitudes and behaviors around the 300 million guns in our homes and communities.

We believe the passionate and sustained voice of the American public is essential to creating meaningful change in these areas. Our goal is to bring that voice to bear in order to make this the better, safer nation we all want and deserve.


  • 1. We call on elected leaders to support a policy platform that addresses the broad gun violence problem and is driven by the opportunity to save the most lives. Every death is a tragedy, whether in a mass shooting that horrifies our entire nation, or one of the 32 gun murders or 90 gun deaths in our communities and homes every day. We applaud the Obama Administration and others at the federal and state level who are leading a policy conversation based on our common goals and values, avoiding the usual, divisive political debate. Policies such as “universal background checks” on all gun sales would keep guns out of the hands of felons, domestic abusers, the dangerously mentally ill and other illegal purchasers without impacting anyone else’s Second Amendment right to own guns. Background checks are supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans, including gun owners -- and they would make us all safer. Let's start there.


  • 2. As Americans, we must address how we think about guns in our communities and in our homes. Public education campaigns are critical to inspiring law-abiding individuals to make safer choices around gun ownership and access. Brady’s “ASK” and “Suicide Proof Your Home” campaigns are evidence that we can have a significant, quantifiable impact on public attitudes and behaviors by educating the public about the relative risks and benefits of gun ownership in an honest and credible way. Other public health and safety issues, such as drinking and driving, and smoking, also show how public health and safety campaigns and insights have had a significant impact on positively changing social norms around dangerous and risky behavior. One key opportunity is in the area of mental health, educating clinicians and parents or spouses of individuals with specific mental illnesses about the dangers associated with access to guns in the home.

Policy recommendations:

Our top policy priority is closing the massive hole in the background check system that enables 40% of all gun sales to take place without background checks, not only at gun shows, but also with the added anonymity of the internet. As a result convicted felons, domestic abusers, the dangerously mentally ill and other prohibited purchasers can easily purchase guns with no questions asked. Calling it a “gun show loophole” trivializes the problem. “Universal background checks” on all gun sales would have a clear positive impact on public safety, and is also clearly compatible with the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns. These policies also tend to enjoy the greatest public support. For example, 92% of Americans and 74% of NRA members support background checks.

Examples of additional policies that should be implemented include:

  • Strengthen the background check system that already exists to ensure, for example, that mental health and other relevant records are in the background check system and readily available within the states.
  • Improve the ability to identify dangerous people who present the most risk, especially among the mentally ill.
    • We should provide legal mechanisms to prevent those dangerously mentally ill who present the most significant risk from possessing guns, while carefully protecting the rights of those who are mentally ill but do not pose a risk.
    • Other dangerous people who are currently not prohibited from purchasing firearms include: terrorists, violent misdemeanants (not involving domestic violence), violent juvenile offenders, and some substance abusers.

    [*]Support law enforcement by giving them the tools to crack down on gun trafficking and prevent straw purchases.

    • Limit the number of guns that can be purchased in a short period of time.
    • Make gun trafficking a federal offense.
    • Allow the ATF to conduct more than one spot inspection a year for dealers (currently prohibited).

    [*]Eliminate legal loopholes that unfairly protect dangerous practices that contribute to gun deaths and injuries.

    • Guns are the only consumer product exempt from federal product safety regulations, so feasible safety features are not required.
    • Negligent gun companies are the only businesses shielded from state civil justice laws, so corrupt gun sellers are not held accountable.
    • Crime gun data is the only special industry exception to public disclosure under FOIA, so officials, law enforcement and researchers are kept in the dark.
    • Department of Health and Human Services agencies, including the National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control, are prevented from studying guns as a public safety risk, so important public health data on policies and programs to prevent gun injury are unavailable.
    • ATF is prevented from requiring basic store inventories that would prevent thefts and expose corrupt dealers, and minimal punishment and excessive evidentiary hurdles make it unduly difficult to punish traffickers and corrupt dealers.

  • Limit the availability of military-style weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines that are designed for mass killing.

These policy recommendations are presented to our elected leaders and to the American public who can work together to make our nation safer.

###

The mission of the Brady organization is to create a safer America for all of us that will lead to the dramatic reduction in gun deaths and injuries that we all seek.

Dan Gross is the President of the Brady Campaign and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. A photo and more information about Dan Gross is available here.

 

For more insight on gun violence prevention, follow The Brady Blog, Facebook Page and Twitter Account. Brady News Releases are available via RSS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no law against yelling Fire at any time anyplace. Our free speech remains unabridged.

There are laws against causing people to stampede, inciting riots, disturbing the peace, and a myriad of other behavioral rules and regulations having to do with survival of the community.

 

If speech causes people to stampede, and if such speech is against the law, how can you say that speech is not being abridged? It obviously is being abridged.

 

Want to try limits on electioneering communications? Those also abridge free speech.

 

It is not the speech which is abridged. You can yell fire in a crowded theater any time you damn well please and not break any law.

 

If you yell fire and casue a stampede by doing so, you are responsable for that which you caused.

 

We cannot prosecute a guy for saying words. We can prosecute for lying, inciting, etc...

 

We do indeed have prohibited speech, and have for a long time.

 

We have a whole agency tasked with prohibiting certain forms of speech. They are called the FEC. Here is what the Supreme Court had to say about their function in Citizens United's majority opinion:

 

Because the FEC’s “business is to censor, there inheres the danger that [it] may well be less responsive than a court—part of an independent branch of government—to the constitutionally protected interests in free expression.” Freedman v. Maryland , 380 U. S. 51, 57–58 (1965) . When the FEC issues advisory opinions that prohibit speech, “[m]any persons, rather than undertake the considerable burden (and sometimes risk) of vindicating their rights through case-by-case litigation, will choose simply to abstain from protected speech—harming not only themselves but society as a whole, which is deprived of an uninhibited marketplace of ideas.”

 

Then there is the FCC. You ever heard of a guy named George Carlin and his routine about 7 banned words? When was the last time you heard the word fuck on prime time TV? The freedom to say it using the public airways has been abridged for quite some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No there is no right to carry outside the home. Doing so infringes on my inalienable right to life liberty and the pursuit of happines

 

Thanks for the first serious answer to the topic question.

 

Do you mean the garage and porch, like Chicago does, or are you just talking about off the property. I'm in my guest house/office at the moment and if one of my guns is in here, I don't see how it is any more dangerous to you than it would be 60 feet away in the main house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

    • Make gun trafficking a federal offense.
    • ...

    [*]

    • Guns are the only consumer product exempt from federal product safety regulations, so feasible safety features are not required.
    • Negligent gun companies are the only businesses shielded from state civil justice laws, so corrupt gun sellers are not held accountable.

  • ..Limit the availability of military-style weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines that are designed for mass killing.

 

 

I don't have a problem with much of what they propose, but firearms trafficking is already against federal law, or maybe I don't understand what they mean by trafficking.

 

The Lawful Commerce In Arms act does not provide product safety exemptions. Is there another law that does?

 

It clearly does not protect corrupt dealers, as the text of the law I posted for you says they must operate within the law to be exempt from suits.

 

11 rounds is not a "high" capacity for most guns in common use, speaking of which...

 

By "military style weapons" are they referencing ones that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia? Because those are the ones that most clearly have second amendment protection since the Miller case in the 30s.

 

Speaking of the second amendment: indoors only, porches and garages, or off the property... where do you stand on the topic question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As with most posts in PA. The following is written such that its best delivery would be Khrushchev style at a podium while repeatedly whacking that podium with the hard leather shoe.

 

khrushchev_shoe1.jpg

 

Go ahead, stand up, take a deep breath and read it aloud.

 

I made the print bigger so you could have room between yourself and the monitor

 

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0

 

 

You guys are all so hung up on the extraneous arguments you are entirely missing my point.

 

1. The wording is VERY clear.

2. Various people with various agendas claim the wording can be bent in various directions depending upon the particular agenda of the individual.

3. Pretty much any junior high school kid who can ace English classes could re-write the 2nd amendment to suit the wishes of any of the bajillion folks who have an individual view of what it OUGHT to say.

 

As written, the 2nd Amendment is insufficient for virtually ANY holder of ANY agenda to logically enforce a modern day particular interpretation.

The Constitution has a described proper procedure for modification and that procedure does not include the words, "or when we just don't look at things that way anymore."

 

Therefore:

Infringed is a pretty simple word. The campaign for gun control must start with an amendment to the constitution.

 

WHY??

 

Because until you get off your freaking asses, line up 66.66666666% of us behind you, and modify the document so those you call "jerks on the other side" can no longer use the "poorly written and vague" second amendment to block your path, YOU WILL NOT ACCOMPLISH YOUR GOAL!!!!!

 

 

 

It ONLY takes two thirds of the states to modify the Constitution. If you want to write gun laws, write up a reasonable amendment that exactly clarifies what sort of arms ownership MAY be infringed and for what reason and get the Constitution modified AGAIN so we can operate this place for the next couple centuries.

 

OR

 

You can continue to waste billions of dollars bickering about militias, hunting rifles, machine guns, trigger functions, ammunition supply systems, education, felonies, age, mental stability, and trying to get past judges who comprehend the meaning of the word INFRINGED.

 

************************************************

 

Politicians are welcome to use the above speech while adressing whatever audience might actually be persuaded to make an honest effort to rationally approach issues related to when and for what reason we might ever decide to legally infringe upon individual posession of weapons in our society.

 

May I suggest an ammendment that has the word "Regulated" in it?

 

Shit. I'm too late again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly had never given it thought before now. Will have to noodle on it for awhile. Kinda defeats the point for hunters if you can only own at home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No there is no right to carry outside the home. Doing so infringes on my inalienable right to life liberty and the pursuit of happines

 

Thanks for the first serious answer to the topic question.

 

Do you mean the garage and porch, like Chicago does, or are you just talking about off the property. I'm in my guest house/office at the moment and if one of my guns is in here, I don't see how it is any more dangerous to you than it would be 60 feet away in the main house.

 

I'm a reasonable person. If tou want to parade it around in your front lawn go ahead as long as it's on your property knock yourself out, but if your neighbors shun you it's on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch, the second amendment is not really about hunting.

 

Bull Gator, my neighbors shoot in my yard and I shoot in their yards. I take it your response means it applies only on your property?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch, the second amendment is not really about hunting.

 

Bull Gator, my neighbors shoot in my yard and I shoot in their yards. I take it your response means it applies only on your property?

 

Yes.

 

I will of except your right to carry for hunting but it must be in season and only to and from hunting. Again I am trying to be reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw I don't think you have a right to shoot on your property. You should have a special permit. For instane a person living in a row house has no right to shoot at targets in his backyard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As with most posts in PA. The following is written such that its best delivery would be Khrushchev style at a podium while repeatedly whacking that podium with the hard leather shoe.

 

khrushchev_shoe1.jpg

 

Go ahead, stand up, take a deep breath and read it aloud.

 

I made the print bigger so you could have room between yourself and the monitor

 

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0

 

 

You guys are all so hung up on the extraneous arguments you are entirely missing my point.

 

1. The wording is VERY clear.

2. Various people with various agendas claim the wording can be bent in various directions depending upon the particular agenda of the individual.

3. Pretty much any junior high school kid who can ace English classes could re-write the 2nd amendment to suit the wishes of any of the bajillion folks who have an individual view of what it OUGHT to say.

 

As written, the 2nd Amendment is insufficient for virtually ANY holder of ANY agenda to logically enforce a modern day particular interpretation.

The Constitution has a described proper procedure for modification and that procedure does not include the words, "or when we just don't look at things that way anymore."

 

Therefore:

Infringed is a pretty simple word. The campaign for gun control must start with an amendment to the constitution.

 

WHY??

 

Because until you get off your freaking asses, line up 66.66666666% of us behind you, and modify the document so those you call "jerks on the other side" can no longer use the "poorly written and vague" second amendment to block your path, YOU WILL NOT ACCOMPLISH YOUR GOAL!!!!!

 

 

 

It ONLY takes two thirds of the states to modify the Constitution. If you want to write gun laws, write up a reasonable amendment that exactly clarifies what sort of arms ownership MAY be infringed and for what reason and get the Constitution modified AGAIN so we can operate this place for the next couple centuries.

 

OR

 

You can continue to waste billions of dollars bickering about militias, hunting rifles, machine guns, trigger functions, ammunition supply systems, education, felonies, age, mental stability, and trying to get past judges who comprehend the meaning of the word INFRINGED.

 

************************************************

 

Politicians are welcome to use the above speech while adressing whatever audience might actually be persuaded to make an honest effort to rationally approach issues related to when and for what reason we might ever decide to legally infringe upon individual posession of weapons in our society.

 

May I suggest an ammendment that has the word "Regulated" in it?

 

Shit. I'm too late again.

Maybe you should figure out what regulated means in terms of civilian ownership of guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Eliminate legal loopholes that unfairly protect dangerous practices that contribute to gun deaths and injuries.
    • Guns are the only consumer product exempt from federal product safety regulations, so feasible safety features are not required.
    • Negligent gun companies are the only businesses shielded from state civil justice laws, so corrupt gun sellers are not held accountable.
    • Crime gun data is the only special industry exception to public disclosure under FOIA, so officials, law enforcement and researchers are kept in the dark.
    • Department of Health and Human Services agencies, including the National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control, are prevented from studying guns as a public safety risk, so important public health data on policies and programs to prevent gun injury are unavailable.
    • ATF is prevented from requiring basic store inventories that would prevent thefts and expose corrupt dealers, and minimal punishment and excessive evidentiary hurdles make it unduly difficult to punish traffickers and corrupt dealers.

 

I wonder what the Brady Campaign would define as Negligent gun companies? Manufacturers that produce guns that jam at crucial moments or blow apart in your hands? I'm guessing something else....

 

 

 

Limit the availability of military-style weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines that are designed for mass killing

 

I guess someone would probably get busy and bring out a 15-round mag designed for convenience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw I don't think you have a right to shoot on your property. You should have a special permit. For instane a person living in a row house has no right to shoot at targets in his backyard.

 

When I lived in a city, there were such rules. No shooting, even with some kind of permit, since there was a good chance of hitting someone else or their property. I live in a rural area now and such concerns are less applicable, depending on what I'm shooting. Some of my guns barely have range to clear the property, others can shoot much further. I make sure no rounds leave the property. It's not that hard and has caused no problems, so I see no need for a special permit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think you need a permit but if yo truly live on an expansive rural property I have no problem with you shooting on your property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think such a permit would be unnecessary paperwork at best for those of us in rural areas. We already shoot all the time and it has been going on for years. I started shooting out here when I was in third grade, long before I moved here. I have not stopped and as I said, it has caused no problems. Most people out here shoot for fun and hunt. If we cause a problem, I'll be willing to listen to the need for permits, but permits to solve a non-problem? No thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch, the second amendment is not really about hunting.

 

Bull Gator, my neighbors shoot in my yard and I shoot in their yards. I take it your response means it applies only on your property?

 

 

right - it's about well-regulated militias….

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think such a permit would be unnecessary paperwork at best for those of us in rural areas. We already shoot all the time and it has been going on for years. I started shooting out here when I was in third grade, long before I moved here. I have not stopped and as I said, it has caused no problems. Most people out here shoot for fun and hunt. If we cause a problem, I'll be willing to listen to the need for permits, but permits to solve a non-problem? No thanks.

 

 

3 kids in my rural high school - run of the mill kids from every indication, had access to a .308. Went plinking in the sand pits on a regular basis.

 

One day, the 3 kids were yanked out of the class by LEO. Seems one of the days they were plinking, the robbed a house, and happened to kill the occupants. Weren't smart enough to lose the weapon. Later, were plinking in the sand pit, LEO sees it's a .308, tests it, finds it's the murder weapon.

 

 

Can we somehow request that anyone under 18 be accompanied by an adult when plinking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As with most posts in PA. The following is written such that its best delivery would be Khrushchev style at a podium while repeatedly whacking that podium with the hard leather shoe.

 

khrushchev_shoe1.jpg

 

Go ahead, stand up, take a deep breath and read it aloud.

 

I made the print bigger so you could have room between yourself and the monitor

 

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0

 

 

You guys are all so hung up on the extraneous arguments you are entirely missing my point.

 

1. The wording is VERY clear.

2. Various people with various agendas claim the wording can be bent in various directions depending upon the particular agenda of the individual.

3. Pretty much any junior high school kid who can ace English classes could re-write the 2nd amendment to suit the wishes of any of the bajillion folks who have an individual view of what it OUGHT to say.

 

As written, the 2nd Amendment is insufficient for virtually ANY holder of ANY agenda to logically enforce a modern day particular interpretation.

The Constitution has a described proper procedure for modification and that procedure does not include the words, "or when we just don't look at things that way anymore."

 

Therefore:

Infringed is a pretty simple word. The campaign for gun control must start with an amendment to the constitution.

 

WHY??

 

Because until you get off your freaking asses, line up 66.66666666% of us behind you, and modify the document so those you call "jerks on the other side" can no longer use the "poorly written and vague" second amendment to block your path, YOU WILL NOT ACCOMPLISH YOUR GOAL!!!!!

 

 

 

It ONLY takes two thirds of the states to modify the Constitution. If you want to write gun laws, write up a reasonable amendment that exactly clarifies what sort of arms ownership MAY be infringed and for what reason and get the Constitution modified AGAIN so we can operate this place for the next couple centuries.

 

OR

 

You can continue to waste billions of dollars bickering about militias, hunting rifles, machine guns, trigger functions, ammunition supply systems, education, felonies, age, mental stability, and trying to get past judges who comprehend the meaning of the word INFRINGED.

 

************************************************

 

Politicians are welcome to use the above speech while adressing whatever audience might actually be persuaded to make an honest effort to rationally approach issues related to when and for what reason we might ever decide to legally infringe upon individual posession of weapons in our society.

 

Gouv. I've seen your rants about inconsequential shit for years. Your take on this particular issue is consistently spot on.

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you posted this again here, I thought I'd post my rebuttal here as well.

 

Brady Campaign proposals. Infringing away. Yes they are, if you read the whole thing to the end.

 

Brady Campaign Releases Policy Recommendation Made to White House Task Force

 

 

Brady Campaign Platform for Reducing Gun Violence in America

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence believes in a comprehensive approach to reducing gun violence in our nation, including both

  • policy to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous people,
  • and public health and safety programs to inspire safer attitudes and behaviors around the 300 million guns in our homes and communities.

We believe the passionate and sustained voice of the American public is essential to creating meaningful change in these areas. Our goal is to bring that voice to bear in order to make this the better, safer nation we all want and deserve.

1. We call on elected leaders to support a policy platform that addresses the broad gun violence problem and is driven by the opportunity to save the most lives. Every death is a tragedy, whether in a mass shooting that horrifies our entire nation, or one of the 32 gun murders or 90 gun deaths in our communities and homes every day. We applaud the Obama Administration and others at the federal and state level who are leading a policy conversation based on our common goals and values, avoiding the usual, divisive political debate. Policies such as “universal background checks” on all gun sales would keep guns out of the hands of felons, domestic abusers, the dangerously mentally ill and other illegal purchasers without impacting anyone else’s Second Amendment right to own guns. Background checks are supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans, including gun owners -- and they would make us all safer. Let's start there. Seems reasable. I have long been saying that I would have no issue with making all sales, both public and private being required to go through an FFL and pay the $25 it takes to do the instant background check. I've never been comfortable with the ability for people to sell guns out of their trunk on the side of the road.


     

2. As Americans, we must address how we think about guns in our communities and in our homes. Public education campaigns are critical to inspiring law-abiding individuals to make safer choices around gun ownership and access. Brady’s “ASK” and “Suicide Proof Your Home” campaigns are evidence that we can have a significant, quantifiable impact on public attitudes and behaviors by educating the public about the relative risks and benefits of gun ownership in an honest and credible way. Other public health and safety issues, such as drinking and driving, and smoking, also show how public health and safety campaigns and insights have had a significant impact on positively changing social norms around dangerous and risky behavior. One key opportunity is in the area of mental health, educating clinicians and parents or spouses of individuals with specific mental illnesses about the dangers associated with access to guns in the home. Again, my whole argument here is the only way we solve the murder problem is through behavioral and societal changes much like the DUI or smoking campaigns. So again, I agree.


     

Policy recommendations:

Our top policy priority is closing the massive hole in the background check system that enables 40% of all gun sales to take place without background checks, not only at gun shows, but also with the added anonymity of the internet. As a result convicted felons, domestic abusers, the dangerously mentally ill and other prohibited purchasers can easily purchase guns with no questions asked. Calling it a “gun show loophole” trivializes the problem. “Universal background checks” on all gun sales would have a clear positive impact on public safety, and is also clearly compatible with the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns. These policies also tend to enjoy the greatest public support. For example, 92% of Americans and 74% of NRA members support background checks.

Examples of additional policies that should be implemented include:

  • Strengthen the background check system that already exists to ensure, for example, that mental health and other relevant records are in the background check system and readily available within the states. Yep
  • Improve the ability to identify dangerous people who present the most risk, especially among the mentally ill. Still good.
    • We should provide legal mechanisms to prevent those dangerously mentally ill who present the most significant risk from possessing guns, while carefully protecting the rights of those who are mentally ill but do not pose a risk.
    • Other dangerous people who are currently not prohibited from purchasing firearms include: terrorists, violent misdemeanants (not involving domestic violence), violent juvenile offenders, and some substance abusers.

    [*]Support law enforcement by giving them the tools to crack down on gun trafficking and prevent straw purchases.

    • Limit the number of guns that can be purchased in a short period of time. Whats the limit? 2, 4, 10, 20, 100?
    • Make gun trafficking a federal offense. I thought it already was.
    • Allow the ATF to conduct more than one spot inspection a year for dealers (currently prohibited). No compaints from me.

    [*]Eliminate legal loopholes that unfairly protect dangerous practices that contribute to gun deaths and injuries. This is where they stray off the reservation into full moron.

    • Guns are the only consumer product exempt from federal product safety regulations, so feasible safety features are not required. Total fail. Gun product safety is not the issue. Guns are safe. Guns are not killing people because of poor safety devices. Guns just do not go boom as a general rule unless the user makes it so. This is a thinly veiled attempt to shut down gun manufacturing through frivolous litigation by trying to bankrupt them.
    • Negligent gun companies are the only businesses shielded from state civil justice laws, so corrupt gun sellers are not held accountable. What do gun "makers" have to do with corrupt gun "sellers"???? If a gun seller is corrupt but still has a FFL license - it seems to me the fingers need to be pointed at the BATF and the DOJ for not enforcing its own rules. Why are they (corrupt gun sellers) still in business if they are corrupt???
    • Crime gun data is the only special industry exception to public disclosure under FOIA, so officials, law enforcement and researchers are kept in the dark. I would like to learn more about this before I pass judgment as to why. I'm pretty sure it was a result of the Teahart Amendment, but I don't know the background behind it. Tom, you're up.
    • Department of Health and Human Services agencies, including the National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control, are prevented from studying guns as a public safety risk, so important public health data on policies and programs to prevent gun injury are unavailable. ibid
    • ATF is prevented from requiring basic store inventories that would prevent thefts and expose corrupt dealers, and minimal punishment and excessive evidentiary hurdles make it unduly difficult to punish traffickers and corrupt dealers. Not sure what that means. It sounds vaugly like they want some kind of registration.

  • Limit the availability of military-style weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines that are designed for mass killing. FAIL. That is most certainly "infringment". We've beat the horse to death on this one. Before you take something away, you'd better fucking well make the case as to why it will make a difference. We have ample data that it will not. "military style" weapons rifles and high normal capacity mags are a tiny fraction of the overall murder rate in this country. We had a 10 year "Assault weapon ban" that had almost no effect on crime whatsoever. Why? because they were hardly ever used in crime before the ban. Why are they being singled out when they are not the primary tool used to kill? And if we are going to use the term "military-style weapon" to ban something.... then EVERY semi-automatic pistol and every precision bolt action rifle and every pump shotgun is a military style weapon. Because the military is using them ALL right now as we speak. You cannot and should not ban or limit something unless its going to have a measurable effect on crime that outweighs the loss of liberty that it will incurr. Banning evil black rifles and handguns will not achieve those goals and therefore this is a stupid course of action. it is purely emotional "do something-ness" pandering. Mark even admitted it was futile and useless, but it was being done for political purposes. FUCK THAT NOISE!!!

 

These policy recommendations are presented to our elected leaders and to the American public who can work together to make our nation safer. The policy recommendations were going well as long as they concentrated on behavior change, strengthening enforcement, reporting and working to keep bad guys from getting guns. I'm ALL in favor of that. They jumped the shark when they then moved on to the inevitable "banning the tool" schtick. Idiots!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch, the second amendment is not really about hunting.

 

Bull Gator, my neighbors shoot in my yard and I shoot in their yards. I take it your response means it applies only on your property?

 

 

right - it's about well-regulated militias….

 

The prefatory clause, explaining the reason for the amendment, is about militias, but the operative clause, explaining what the government may not do, is about "the right of the people."

 

For years there was widespread misunderstanding of the US v Miller SCOTUS decision, which said:

 

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

 

The absence of evidence was because Miller did not show up to present any evidence. He had run off and some accounts say he was dead by the time his case got to the Supreme Court.

 

What the court found was that no one had presented evidence that short shotguns are actually used by soldiers. By that time, they had been used in trench warfare, where a longer gun would be more difficult to maneuver. It was not that evidence did not exist, it was that no one showed up to tell the court that evidence, and the Supreme Court does not just gather their own evidence.

 

Miller was a bootlegger and small time criminal and was not part of any regular militia. If the Supreme Court had found that significant, they would have simply refused to hear his case at all, or would have heard it and decided by 9-0 that he, not his gun, lacked second amendment standing. Instead they focused on the weapon, not the person. That's because the amendment protects the right of the people, not the right of militia members.

 

Lawrence Tribe was the first significant voice on the gun control side to admit this truth and said long before the Heller case that the second amendment protects an individual right of the people. The entire Supreme Court agreed with him in the Heller case. Even the minority found that the second amendment protects an individual right. Justice Stevens led off his dissent with this:

 

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

 

My emphasis. This means that the old "collective rights" argument that the second amendment only applies to militias is well and truly dead, and not just to gun nuts. It protects an individual right. The Justices just disagreed on what that means in practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thinking about it more - no - I don't think it's home only. I don't see any other "right" as being location specific, not sure why the 2nd should be.

 

To Gouv's point, reasonable regulation may require a change in the 2nd to reflect the realities of the outcome of the civil war. The Feds have proven pretty effective in putting down armed rebellion, and won't really stand for it, 2nd amendment or no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thinking about it more - no - I don't think it's home only. I don't see any other "right" as being location specific, not sure why the 2nd should be.

 

To Gouv's point, reasonable regulation may require a change in the 2nd to reflect the realities of the outcome of the civil war. The Feds have proven pretty effective in putting down armed rebellion, and won't really stand for it, 2nd amendment or no.

 

If you want a federal judge's view of why the second should only apply in the home, read the dissent in Moore v Madigan:

 

 

His idea is basically that if some places beyond your doorstep can be declared gun-free zones, and the Heller decision says they can, why not all such places?

 

To the second point, I'd say that winning one war does not mean you will win every future war. Furthermore, there are purposes beyond rebellion to having armed citizens. Invasion comes to mind, and while it doesn't seem likely this week or even this year, can we say that it will never happen? Another would be collapse of our government. Again, unlikely this week or this year, but for all time? Another would be temporary and localized disability of our government, which I have already experienced in the aftermath of hurricane Andrew in Miami.

 

When there is no government, the people who still have guns make the rules. I'd prefer that be my friends and neighbors and tens of millions like them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want a federal judge's view of why the second should only apply in the home, read the dissent in Moore v Madigan:

 

 

His idea is basically that if some places beyond your doorstep can be declared gun-free zones, and the Heller decision says they can, why not all such places?...

 

My reaction to this idea is that when the Supreme Court said this in the Heller case:

 

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

 

they did not mean to include porches and garages on private property among the named "sensitive places."

 

My other reaction is that what I just said should go without saying, but the anti-gun lobby is just not reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Gouv's point, reasonable regulation may require a change in the 2nd to reflect the realities of the outcome of the civil war. The Feds have proven pretty effective in putting down armed rebellion, and won't really stand for it, 2nd amendment or no.

 

Tell me again how many US Soldier's have died and how many years we've been stuck fighting small bands of "militia" fighters with essentially only small arms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Gouv's point, reasonable regulation may require a change in the 2nd to reflect the realities of the outcome of the civil war. The Feds have proven pretty effective in putting down armed rebellion, and won't really stand for it, 2nd amendment or no.

 

Tell me again how many US Soldier's have died and how many years we've been stuck fighting small bands of "militia" fighters with essentially only small arms?

Yet they proved ineffective in resisting US forces in Iraq. They lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Gouv's point, reasonable regulation may require a change in the 2nd to reflect the realities of the outcome of the civil war. The Feds have proven pretty effective in putting down armed rebellion, and won't really stand for it, 2nd amendment or no.

 

Tell me again how many US Soldier's have died and how many years we've been stuck fighting small bands of "militia" fighters with essentially only small arms?

Yet they proved ineffective in resisting US forces in Iraq. They lost.

 

Should have been allowed to take their weapons out onto their porches. :rolleyes:

 

Got an answer to the topic question, Ed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Gouv's point, reasonable regulation may require a change in the 2nd to reflect the realities of the outcome of the civil war. The Feds have proven pretty effective in putting down armed rebellion, and won't really stand for it, 2nd amendment or no.

 

Tell me again how many US Soldier's have died and how many years we've been stuck fighting small bands of "militia" fighters with essentially only small arms?

Yet they proved ineffective in resisting US forces in Iraq. They lost.

 

Did they, now? Muqtada Al-Sadr is one of the most influential people in Iraq these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Gouv's point, reasonable regulation may require a change in the 2nd to reflect the realities of the outcome of the civil war. The Feds have proven pretty effective in putting down armed rebellion, and won't really stand for it, 2nd amendment or no.

 

Tell me again how many US Soldier's have died and how many years we've been stuck fighting small bands of "militia" fighters with essentially only small arms?

Yet they proved ineffective in resisting US forces in Iraq. They lost.

 

Did they, now? Muqtada Al-Sadr is one of the most influential people in Iraq these days.

 

I wonder if he and his supporters had to go outdoors with weapons to achieve that result? Maybe even wander beyond their own porches with them? The horror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so if it cannot be infringed,

 

then any madman

child (or slave, or even, gasp, woman)

corporation

etc

 

should have access to whatever you define as an "arm"

 

if it really is all or nothing as you propose...

 

Oh poor Mitch.

 

To Gouv's point, reasonable regulation may require a change in the 2nd to reflect the realities of the outcome of the civil war. The Feds have proven pretty effective in putting down armed rebellion, and won't really stand for it, 2nd amendment or no.

 

Tell me again how many US Soldier's have died and how many years we've been stuck fighting small bands of "militia" fighters with essentially only small arms?

Yet they proved ineffective in resisting US forces in Iraq. They lost.

 

Should have been allowed to take their weapons out onto their porches. :rolleyes:

 

Got an answer to the topic question, Ed?

 

Please, Spatial's got so much on his agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so if it cannot be infringed,

 

then any madman

child (or slave, or even, gasp, woman)

corporation

etc

 

should have access to whatever you define as an "arm"

 

if it really is all or nothing as you propose...

 

Oh poor Mitch.

 

 

 

See post 34. Mitch is an "all or nothing" guy like me now. After all, in his view, thinking that the second amendment does not stop at the front door means you are proposing "all or nothing" as far as I can tell. He has failed to offer any other example of what he might have been talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chicago's police chief does not think his officers can behave as responsibly as Florida police have managed to since 1987.

 

“I don’t care if they’re licensed legal firearms, people who are not highly trained… putting guns in their hands is a recipe for disaster,” Chicago’s Police Chief Gary McCarthy told a Windy City radio interviewer at WVON 1690 am. “So I’ll train our officers that there is a concealed carry law, but when somebody turns with a firearm in their hand the officer does not have an obligation to wait to get shot to return fire and we’re going to have tragedies as a result of that. I’m telling you right up front.”

 

Good grief. They have 6 months from the date of the Moore v Madigan decision and it's already clear that they can have the same kind of permit program that NYC does, where only politically connected people can get a permit, yet he's already in a panic and talking about his officers killing people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so if it cannot be infringed,

 

then any madman

child (or slave, or even, gasp, woman)

corporation

etc

 

should have access to whatever you define as an "arm"

 

if it really is all or nothing as you propose...

 

Oh poor Mitch.

 

 

 

See post 34. Mitch is an "all or nothing" guy like me now. After all, in his view, thinking that the second amendment does not stop at the front door means you are proposing "all or nothing" as far as I can tell. He has failed to offer any other example of what he might have been talking about.

 

he's part of that "Do-Something" crowd. Its emotional not rational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's much easier to do nothing, and just think we must live with 30-100 guns deaths a day, every day.

 

I suppose it's the same sort of reception MADD got in the beginning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Gouv's point, reasonable regulation may require a change in the 2nd to reflect the realities of the outcome of the civil war. The Feds have proven pretty effective in putting down armed rebellion, and won't really stand for it, 2nd amendment or no.

 

Tell me again how many US Soldier's have died and how many years we've been stuck fighting small bands of "militia" fighters with essentially only small arms?

 

while I wasn't clear in writing it - I meant to add in an "at home" in there.

 

The Feds have proven pretty effective in putting down armed rebellion, at home, and won't really stand for it, 2nd amendment or no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's much easier to do nothing, and just think we must live with 30-100 guns deaths a day, every day.

 

I suppose it's the same sort of reception MADD got in the beginning.

 

Except that nobody was suggesting that cars or alcohol be banned...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's much easier to do nothing, and just think we must live with 30-100 guns deaths a day, every day.

 

I suppose it's the same sort of reception MADD got in the beginning.

 

Except that nobody was suggesting that cars or alcohol be banned...

 

Prohibition didn't seem to work too well. I'm looking for the next wave of do-gooders to ban my assault vehicle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's much easier to do nothing, and just think we must live with 30-100 guns deaths a day, every day.

 

I suppose it's the same sort of reception MADD got in the beginning.

 

Except that nobody was suggesting that cars or alcohol be banned...

 

 

 

We didn't change DUI death rates by banning cars and beer. Nor did we restrict the number of people a car could carry or the speed of the car anymore than we mandated smaller beer bottles or a smaller alcohol content of the beer. We changed the Scourge of DUI through societal changes in attitudes, awareness, reporting, lack of tolerance for offenders, stiffer enforcement and tougher penalties.

 

Why is "gun crime" treated differently than Driving while drunk"? Why is the tool blamed and responsible users punished in the 1st case when the offenders and their behavior and not the tools were the culprits in the latter case???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's much easier to do nothing, and just think we must live with 30-100 guns deaths a day, every day.

 

I suppose it's the same sort of reception MADD got in the beginning.

 

Except that nobody was suggesting that cars or alcohol be banned...

 

 

We didn't change DUI death rates by banning cars and beer. Nor did we restrict the number of people a car could carry or the speed of the car anymore than we mandated smaller beer bottles or a smaller alcohol content of the beer. We changed the Scourge of DUI through societal changes in attitudes, awareness, reporting, lack of tolerance for offenders, stiffer enforcement and tougher penalties.

 

Why is "gun crime" treated differently than Driving while drunk"? Why is the tool blamed and responsible users punished in the 1st case when the offenders and their behavior and not the tools were the culprits in the latter case???

 

Yeah..... I can't seem to get an answer to that question from anyone here. I wonder why that is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thinking about it more - no - I don't think it's home only. I don't see any other "right" as being location specific, not sure why the 2nd should be.

 

Why are you bringing up other rights when we are talking about the second amendment? Having a Favre moment? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Brady Center is urging an en banc review and reversal of the Moore v Madigan result by the full circuit court.

 

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, along with the parents of shooting victims Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis, and several national law enforcement groups, today filed an amicus brief asking the entire United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to review and reverse a 2-1 decision that held Illinois law restricting the public carrying of firearms unconstitutional.

 

They have a different definition of "in public" from mine. The statute in question prohibited carrying handguns outside the home...

 

Firearm possession is legal in "the home," which the ordinance defines as the interior of the dwelling, not including garages, outbuildings, porches, patios or yards.

 

Posted from one of my four outbuildings, all of which seem like private places to me, not public ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

May I suggest an ammendment that has the word "Regulated" in it?

 

Shit. I'm too late again.

 

Our existing one has "well regulated" in it, not over regulated.

 

Do you think that it applies only inside the dwelling, not the porch or garage? How about off your property? Any thoughts at all on the topic question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our Constitution was written by the original writers for SNL. Satire at its' best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's much easier to do nothing, and just think we must live with 30-100 guns deaths a day, every day.

 

I suppose it's the same sort of reception MADD got in the beginning.

 

Except that nobody was suggesting that cars or alcohol be banned...

 

 

We didn't change DUI death rates by banning cars and beer. Nor did we restrict the number of people a car could carry or the speed of the car anymore than we mandated smaller beer bottles or a smaller alcohol content of the beer. We changed the Scourge of DUI through societal changes in attitudes, awareness, reporting, lack of tolerance for offenders, stiffer enforcement and tougher penalties.

 

Why is "gun crime" treated differently than Driving while drunk"? Why is the tool blamed and responsible users punished in the 1st case when the offenders and their behavior and not the tools were the culprits in the latter case???

 

Yeah..... I can't seem to get an answer to that question from anyone here. I wonder why that is?

Because the use of a deadly weapon aggravates most criminal charges. There is simple assault for example, and there is assault with a deadly weapon, (which may or may not be firearm.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We didn't change DUI death rates by banning cars and beer. Nor did we restrict the number of people a car could carry or the speed of the car anymore than we mandated smaller beer bottles or a smaller alcohol content of the beer. We changed the Scourge of DUI through societal changes in attitudes, awareness, reporting, lack of tolerance for offenders, stiffer enforcement and tougher penalties.

 

Why is "gun crime" treated differently than Driving while drunk"? Why is the tool blamed and responsible users punished in the 1st case when the offenders and their behavior and not the tools were the culprits in the latter case???

 

Yeah..... I can't seem to get an answer to that question from anyone here. I wonder why that is?

Because the use of a deadly weapon aggravates most criminal charges. There is simple assault for example, and there is assault with a deadly weapon, (which may or may not be firearm.)

 

And is there not something called "vehicular assault" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our Constitution was written by the original writers for SNL. Satire at its' best.

 

I think that to really get the most amusement out of the second amendment it takes a modern judge. The right to bear arms is not all that funny. The right to bear arms all the way to your doorstep, but not beyond, not even to the garage? That's friggin' funny, or would be if it were not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Judges certainly don't want "those" people to actually use their Second Amendment rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our Constitution was written by the original writers for SNL. Satire at its' best.

 

I think that to really get the most amusement out of the second amendment it takes a modern judge. The right to bear arms is not all that funny. The right to bear arms all the way to your doorstep, but not beyond, not even to the garage? That's friggin' funny, or would be if it were not true.

 

 

The founders could not see stables being replaced by garages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our Constitution was written by the original writers for SNL. Satire at its' best.

 

I think that to really get the most amusement out of the second amendment it takes a modern judge. The right to bear arms is not all that funny. The right to bear arms all the way to your doorstep, but not beyond, not even to the garage? That's friggin' funny, or would be if it were not true.

 

 

The founders could not see stables being replaced by garages.

 

indeed, they almost created a Bureau of Feed, Blacksmithing and Tackle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked up the Chicago law in question in the Moore v Madigan case

 

Chapter 8-20: Weapons

 

Definitions...

 

“Home” means the inside of a person's dwelling unit which is traditionally used for living purposes, including the basement and attic. A “home” does not include: (i) any garage, including an attached garage, on the lot; (ii) any space outside the dwelling unit, including any stairs, porches, back, side or front yard space, or common areas; or (iii) any dormitory, hotel, or group living, as that term is defined in section 17-17-0102-A.

 

...

 

8-20-020 - Unlawful possession of handguns.

 

(a) It is unlawful for any person to carry or possess a handgun, except when in the person's home.

 

I didn't know that the attic and basement are actually allowable places to have an operational handgun. Let freedom ring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Brady Center is urging an en banc review and reversal of the Moore v Madigan result by the full circuit court.

 

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, along with the parents of shooting victims Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis, and several national law enforcement groups, today filed an amicus brief asking the entire United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to review and reverse a 2-1 decision that held Illinois law restricting the public carrying of firearms unconstitutional.

 

They have a different definition of "in public" from mine. The statute in question prohibited carrying handguns outside the home...

 

Firearm possession is legal in "the home," which the ordinance defines as the interior of the dwelling, not including garages, outbuildings, porches, patios or yards.

 

Posted from one of my four outbuildings, all of which seem like private places to me, not public ones.

 

 

I don't see that 2nd quote about firearm possession on the Brady release. Are you mixing your cites?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, that was quoted from a gun nut forum and I thought I had linked the above text as I usually do, but obviously I did not.

 

As you can see, I did find and cite the source for the law in Chicago about what is in the home and what is public, and the gun nutters were right.

 

An attached garage is a "public" place according to the law in question in Moore v Madigan.

 

I think that if someone made a law using that definition in the context of the fourth amendment, more people would see a problem with it.

 

That is actually one problem that I do see with it since (Favre alert) our courts consider how they have treated other protected rights when considering how to treat any given right.

 

If attached garages are "public" places when it comes to the second amendment, and Chicago and the Brady Bunch clearly think that they are, they can much more easily become "public" places when it comes to the fourth amendment. Or, for that matter, the first or fifth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, that was quoted from a gun nut forum and I thought I had linked the above text as I usually do, but obviously I did not.

 

As you can see, I did find and cite the source for the law in Chicago about what is in the home and what is public, and the gun nutters were right.

 

An attached garage is a "public" place according to the law in question in Moore v Madigan.

 

I think that if someone made a law using that definition in the context of the fourth amendment, more people would see a problem with it.

 

That is actually one problem that I do see with it since (Favre alert) our courts consider how they have treated other protected rights when considering how to treat any given right.

 

If attached garages are "public" places when it comes to the second amendment, and Chicago and the Brady Bunch clearly think that they are, they can much more easily become "public" places when it comes to the fourth amendment. Or, for that matter, the first or fifth.

 

Chicago yes, haven't seen anything from Brady on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, that was quoted from a gun nut forum and I thought I had linked the above text as I usually do, but obviously I did not.

 

As you can see, I did find and cite the source for the law in Chicago about what is in the home and what is public, and the gun nutters were right.

 

An attached garage is a "public" place according to the law in question in Moore v Madigan.

 

I think that if someone made a law using that definition in the context of the fourth amendment, more people would see a problem with it.

 

That is actually one problem that I do see with it since (Favre alert) our courts consider how they have treated other protected rights when considering how to treat any given right.

 

If attached garages are "public" places when it comes to the second amendment, and Chicago and the Brady Bunch clearly think that they are, they can much more easily become "public" places when it comes to the fourth amendment. Or, for that matter, the first or fifth.

 

Or even the 3rd. Putting soldiers up in your garage certainly wouldn't be an infringement in Chicago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chicago yes, haven't seen anything from Brady on it.

 

Here you go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe I'm missing a subtlety - but is McDonald vs City of Chicago only about the the definition of "home"? Doesn't seem to be. Seems more to be what a state or locale can, or cannot, regulate. I see Brady as saying that reasonable regulations should be ok, but I don't see them defining the word "home"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe I'm missing a subtlety - but is McDonald vs City of Chicago only about the the definition of "home"? Doesn't seem to be. Seems more to be what a state or locale can, or cannot, regulate. I see Brady as saying that reasonable regulations should be ok, but I don't see them defining the word "home"

 

The Brady center is defending the shitcago gun restrictions 'in toto". They therefore support Chicago's definition of home.

 

Edit: there is nothing "reasonable" about chicago's gun ban. Hence why the SC struck it down.

 

Edit2: BTW - how well are chicago's gun laws doing to reduce the murder rate? Less guns = less death, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think how much mors traight foreward it would be and so very much simpler for the politicians in Chicago to submit an amendmentto thwe Constitution before writing laws that do not fit the current version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think how much mors traight foreward it would be and so very much simpler for the politicians in Chicago to submit an amendmentto thwe Constitution before writing laws that do not fit the current version.

 

jesus gouv are you on the sauce again?

 

Troubling...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think how much more straight foreward it would be and so very much simpler for the politicians in Chicago to submit an amendment to the Constitution before writing laws that do not fit the current version.

 

jesus gouv are you on the sauce again?

 

Troubling...

 

Sorry there were so many typos.

The simple fact is, the Constitutions Second Amendment makes to abundantly clear the right to bear arms cannot be infringed. For those of us who believe the majority of Americans are ready to consider some sort of experimental infringement, it is reasonable and obvious that the first step in instituting some of those experimental infringements is to draft new wording for our Constitution and make an Amendment which exactly clarifies and defines the available sorts of infringement in which the Govenment may participate.

When I observe efforts by people to infringe without doing so legally, I generally assume those people are either deliberatly seeking a path to failure or too stupid to be put in positions of responsability..

 

If you actually believe we ought to legislate some gun control, why do you handcuff your own efforts by leaving the Second Amendment and its obvious prohibitive wording in place??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think how much more straight foreward it would be and so very much simpler for the politicians in Chicago to submit an amendment to the Constitution before writing laws that do not fit the current version.

 

jesus gouv are you on the sauce again?

 

Troubling...

 

Sorry there were so many typos.

The simple fact is, the Constitutions Second Amendment makes to abundantly clear the right to bear arms cannot be infringed. For those of us who believe the majority of Americans are ready to consider some sort of experimental infringement, it is reasonable and obvious that the first step in instituting some of those experimental infringements is to draft new wording for our Constitution and make an Amendment which exactly clarifies and defines the available sorts of infringement in which the Govenment may participate.

When I observe efforts by people to infringe without doing so legally, I generally assume those people are either deliberatly seeking a path to failure or too stupid to be put in positions of responsability..

 

If you actually believe we ought to legislate some gun control, why do you handcuff your own efforts by leaving the Second Amendment and its obvious prohibitive wording in place??

 

Gouv, you answered your own question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Chicago yes, haven't seen anything from Brady on it.

 

Look a bit more closely.

 

The Brady Center is urging an en banc review and reversal of the Moore v Madigan result by the full circuit court.

 

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, along with the parents of shooting victims Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis, and several national law enforcement groups, today filed an amicus brief asking the entire United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to review and reverse a 2-1 decision that held Illinois law restricting the public carrying of firearms unconstitutional.

...

 

They want the full court to reverse Moore v Madigan, which would restore Chicago's law, complete with the absurd definition of "home."

 

As my gun nut forum link showed, that definition has been a point of controversy since 2010 and there is no way they are unaware of it.

 

That means they are perfectly willing to tolerate that absurd definition of what is "public" vs what is "in the home" in Chicago's laws, and to support that definition in federal court (spreading the effect to all of us) with an amicus brief.

 

Public means inside an attached garage or porch, or in a back yard, according to Chicago and their supporters at the Brady Center.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe I'm missing a subtlety - but is McDonald vs City of Chicago only about the the definition of "home"? Doesn't seem to be. Seems more to be what a state or locale can, or cannot, regulate. I see Brady as saying that reasonable regulations should be ok, but I don't see them defining the word "home"

 

McDonald was about whether the second amendment applies to state and local governments.

 

It does.

 

With that decided, a host of other cases have been and will be deciding what those governments can and can not do. Moore v Madigan is one of those cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McDonald was about whether the second amendment applies to state and local governments.

 

It does.

 

With that decided, a host of other cases have been and will be deciding what those governments can and can not do. Moore v Madigan is one of those cases.

 

Tom, what's your take on the pending legislation in NY as well as the imminent Federal AWB being proposed? Take your devil's advocate hat off for a moment and pontificate on how Heller, McDonald, et al decisions are going to affect the legality of these proposed laws. If they get passed, will they hold up in court? What parts would be seen as constitutional and what parts will stand?

 

It seems to me that Miller will need to be re-attacked and shown that the guns in common use today (AR-15s, S/A handguns, etc) are protected.

 

Anyway, get your Constitutional crystal ball out and regale us with knowledge. I'm not smart enough (i.e. too lazy) to put together all the patchwork decisions and try to figure out the the SCOTUS will do. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Miller:

 

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.

 

From Heller:

 

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” ...

 

...

 

As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.

 

Semi-auto handguns are in common use and are overwhelmingly chosen for the central purpose of the second amendment right. AR's and other mean looking rifles are as well, and could contribute to the common defense. The argument that they are "military style" weapons only reinforces that point, and the point that they have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

 

From the anal rape thread:

 

They may have really screwed up by sliding down the slope a bit from 10 rounds to 7, thereby banning the class of weapons that hold ten rounds. Those were made popular by the expired mean looking weapons ban, which caused a lot of manufacturers to make compliant guns. Lots of us bought those guns.

 

I think these laws will have a difficult time in court for those reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Miller:

 

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.

 

From Heller:

 

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” ...

 

...

 

As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.

 

Semi-auto handguns are in common use and are overwhelmingly chosen for the central purpose of the second amendment right. AR's and other mean looking rifles are as well, and could contribute to the common defense. The argument that they are "military style" weapons only reinforces that point, and the point that they have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

 

From the anal rape thread:

 

They may have really screwed up by sliding down the slope a bit from 10 rounds to 7, thereby banning the class of weapons that hold ten rounds. Those were made popular by the expired mean looking weapons ban, which caused a lot of manufacturers to make compliant guns. Lots of us bought those guns.

 

I think these laws will have a difficult time in court for those reasons.

 

Yes, but they "did something".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but they "did something".

 

In a way it's good that the anti-gun crowd is so extreme. They had multiple opportunities to relax DC's requirements and re-open the closed registry just a crack, which likely would have avoided the Heller result. But no, the gun ban closed registry was too important. Chicago could have allowed shooting ranges and training in the city (it was required but not allowed) and thereby avoided another loss in court, but the extremists would not hear of it, so they lost in court again.

 

From the sound of things, NY is looking to go the same route: pass some extremist anti-gun legislation and watch it get overturned in court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but they "did something".

 

From the sound of things, NY is looking to go the same route: pass some extremist anti-gun legislation and watch it get overturned in court.

 

You mean, they might "have some new gun laws shoved up their a$$"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think how much more straight foreward it would be and so very much simpler for the politicians in Chicago to submit an amendment to the Constitution before writing laws that do not fit the current version.

 

jesus gouv are you on the sauce again?

 

Troubling...

 

Sorry there were so many typos.

The simple fact is, the Constitutions Second Amendment makes to abundantly clear the right to bear arms cannot be infringed. For those of us who believe the majority of Americans are ready to consider some sort of experimental infringement, it is reasonable and obvious that the first step in instituting some of those experimental infringements is to draft new wording for our Constitution and make an Amendment which exactly clarifies and defines the available sorts of infringement in which the Govenment may participate.

When I observe efforts by people to infringe without doing so legally, I generally assume those people are either deliberatly seeking a path to failure or too stupid to be put in positions of responsability..

 

If you actually believe we ought to legislate some gun control, why do you handcuff your own efforts by leaving the Second Amendment and its obvious prohibitive wording in place??

 

unfortunately it will be impossible to repeal in the current political climate. However by stacking the supreme court with reasonable jurists we should be able to chip away at it..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

unfortunately it will be impossible to repeal in the current political climate. However by stacking the supreme court with reasonable jurists we should be able to chip away at it..

 

Gator,

My question was intended for people who at least claim to support the second amendment. But thanks for answering anyway. At least you are more reasonable than the Brady Bunch and the government of Chicago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My daughter is being raped in the garage. I just stopped at my PC for a quick post while on my way to toss my handgun back in the gun safe and grab a 7 iron out of my golf bag. Silly me. Lost my head for a minute.

 

I'll keep you posted.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My daughter is being raped in the garage. I just swung by for a quick post while on my way to put my handgun back in the gun safe and grab a 7 iron out of my golf bag.

 

I'll keep you posted.....

 

make some noise, it might just be a confused burglar who will leave when he knows you are home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My daughter is being raped in the garage. I just stopped at my PC for a quick post while on my way to toss my handgun back in the gun safe and grab a 7 iron out of my golf bag. Silly me. Lost my head for a minute.

 

I'll keep you posted.....

 

What was she doing in the garage unsupervised?

 

Troubling laspe of judgement on your part. Hope she forgives you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't use a 7-iron when he's got a driver.

 

 

UGH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My daughter is being raped in the garage. I just stopped at my PC for a quick post while on my way to toss my handgun back in the gun safe and grab a 7 iron out of my golf bag. Silly me. Lost my head for a minute.

 

I'll keep you posted.....

 

Glad to hear it is not happening in your home. Are you allowed to wield golf clubs in public places such as your garage where you live?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't use a 7-iron when he's got a driver.

 

 

UGH.

 

oh, dude. Even for PA, that was... yuk. This isn't 4chan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge Posner, writing for the majority in Moore v Madigan:

 

The Second Amendment states in its entirety that “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” (emphasis added). The right to “bear” as distinct from the right to “keep” arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of “bearing” arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.

 

Which side has the ridiculous interpretation of the second amendment again?

 

I think it's the ones who say you can't "bear arms" in your attached garage. I'd love to hear the non-nutty view of that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a slight modification...

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses (not including any attached or separate garage, porch, stairway or yard area), papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

Is that OK, gungrabbers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge Williams, dissenting in Moore vs Madigan:

 

I will pause here to state that I am not convinced that the implication of the Heller and McDonald decisions is that the Second Amendment right to have ready-to-use firearms for potential self-defense extends beyond the home. That the Second Amendment speaks of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” (emphasis added) does not to me imply a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home. Heller itself demonstrates this. The Court interpreted “bear” to mean to “carry” or to “wear, bear, or carry,” upon one’s person, for the purpose of being armed and ready in case of conflict. Heller, 554 U.S. at 584. And we know that Heller contemplated that a gun might only be carried in the home because it ordered the District of Columbia to permit Heller to do precisely that: it directed that unless Heller was otherwise disqualified, the District must allow him “to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.” Id. at 635 (emphasis added). Mr. Heller did not want simply “to keep” a gun in his closet. He wanted to be able “to bear” it in case of self-defense, and the Supreme Court said he could.

 

His idea is that because the Supreme Court said in Heller that Mr. Heller had a right to "bear" his gun inside his home at the very least, that also means it is the very most that the second amendment protects and bearing arms in public places such as attached garages is not protected by the second amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This passage from Judge Williams' dissent in Moore v Madigan makes me wonder whether he bothered to read the dissents in Heller.

 

Heller tells us that “the Second Amendment was not intended to lay down a novel principle but rather codified a right inherited from our English ancestors.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 599 (internal quotations omitted). For our English ancestors a man’s home was his castle, and so he had broad powers to defend himself there. See 4 William Blackstone, Commentar- ies on the Laws of England 223 (1769). The focus of Heller’s historical examination was on whether the Second Amend- ment included an individual right to bear arms or whether that right was limited to militia service. Once the Heller majority found that the Second Amend- ment was personal, the conclusion that one could possess ready-to-use firearms in the home for self- defense there makes sense in light of the home-as-castle history.

 

It is less clear to me, however, that a widely understood right to carry ready-to-use arms in public for potential self-defense existed at the time of the founding.

 

Justice Stevens led off his Heller dissent with this:

 

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.

 

So it would be more accurate to say that the entire court, not just the majority, found a that the second amendment protects a personal right in the Heller case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge Williams said:

 

The Supreme Court made clear in Heller that “nothing in [its] opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstand- ing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and govern- ment buildings . . . .” 554 U.S. at 626. McDonald made sure to “repeat those assurances.” McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3047. That a legislature can forbid the carrying of firearms in schools and government buildings means that any right to possess a gun for self-defense outside the home is not absolute, and it is not absolute by the Supreme Court’s own terms.

 

Indeed, the Supreme Court would deem it presumptively permissible to outright forbid the carrying of firearms in certain public places, but that does not mean that a self- defense need never arises in those places. The teacher being stalked by her ex-husband is susceptible at work, and in her school parking lot, and on the school playground, to someone intent on harming her. So why would the Supreme Court reassure us that a legislature can ban guns in certain places? It must be out of a common-sense recognition of the risks that arise when guns are around.

 

Any right to carry loaded firearms outside the home for self-defense is, under Heller’s own terms, susceptible to a legislative determination that firearms should not be allowed in certain public places. The Supreme Court tells us that a state can forbid guns in schools. That probably means it can forbid guns not just inside the school building, but also in the playground and parking lot and grassy area on its property too. And if a state can ban guns on school property, perhaps it can ban them within a certain distance of a school too. Cf. 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A). The Supreme Court also tells us that a state can ban guns in government buildings. The list of such buildings would seem to include post offices, courthouses, libraries, Department of Motor Vehicle facilities, city halls, and more. And the legislature can ban firearms in other “sensitive places” too. So maybe in a place of worship. See GeorgiaCarry.Org v. Georgia, 687 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2012) (upholding ban on firearms in places of worship). Maybe too on the grounds of a public university. See DiGiacinto v. Rector & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 704 S.E.2d 365 (Va. 2011) (upholding regulation prohibiting posses- sion of guns in university facilities and at campus events). Or in an airport, or near a polling place, or in a bar. And if the latter is true then perhaps a legislature could ban loaded firearms any place where alcohol is sold, so in restaurants and convenience stores as well. The resulting patchwork of places where loaded guns could and could not be carried is not only odd but also could not guarantee meaningful self-defense, which suggests that the constitutional right to carry ready-to-use firearms in public for self-defense may well not exist.

 

Short version: if it's not "all" then it must be "nothing."

 

The fact that any of our rights can be subject to limitations does not make all limitations legitimate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang on to your pearls! Here comes a quote from the majority in Moore v Madigan:

 

 

 

 

If the mere possibility that allowing guns to be carried in public would increase the crime or death rates sufficed to justify a ban, Heller would have been decided the other way, for that possibility was as great in the District of Columbia as it is in Illinois.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No there is no right to carry outside the home. Doing so infringes on my inalienable right to life liberty and the pursuit of happines

 

Thanks for the first serious answer to the topic question.

 

Do you mean the garage and porch, like Chicago does, or are you just talking about off the property. I'm in my guest house/office at the moment and if one of my guns is in here, I don't see how it is any more dangerous to you than it would be 60 feet away in the main house.

 

I'm a reasonable person. If tou want to parade it around in your front lawn go ahead as long as it's on your property knock yourself out, but if your neighbors shun you it's on you.

 

The lawn is outside the home.

 

 

 

 

Any of you legal scholars want to answer whether the second amendment applies outside the home?

 

crickets...

 

No. It clearly does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites