Sign in to follow this  
Importunate Tom

2nd Amendment: In the home only?

Recommended Posts

Tom, will you please stop that crap? You know perfectly well this is all summarily irrelevant until John Stewart weighs in and salutes it with his approval.

He's actually pretty good at mockery, and the position that the second amendment applies only inside the home is a big, ripe target.

 

With all due deference, which ain't much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge Williams, dissenting in Moore v Madigan:

 

On the other side of the lethal danger to the State’s citizens is the asserted interest in carrying guns for self-defense, yet even the majority does not contend that carrying guns in public has been shown to be an effective form of self-defense. For example, as the majority acknowledges, University of Pennsylvania researchers found that assault victims are more likely to be armed than the rest of the population. See Maj. Op. at 12-13 (citing Charles C. Branas et al., Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 99 Am. J. of Pub. Health 2034, 2037 (2009)). The researchers examined shootings in Philadelphia and concluded that “gun possession by urban adults was associated with a significantly increased risk of being shot in an assault,” id., which suggests, if anything, that carrying a gun is not effective self-defense. The researchers posited that possible reasons for their findings included that a gun may falsely empower its possessor to overreact, that persons with guns may increase the risk of harm by entering dangerous environments that they normally would have avoided, and that persons bringing guns to an otherwise gun-free conflict may have those guns wrested away and turned on them.

 

People are carrying guns when they get shot. This suggests that they knew they were entering a dangerous area and chose to be ready to defend themselves. People don't always have a choice about which areas they enter and people carrying guns are not immune from being shot before they can defend themselves. If this study really shows that guns are ineffective for defense, it means we should make society safer by disarming our police.

 

Or maybe we should let police have guns, but only inside their homes. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Accidentally put this in the wrong thread this morning:

 

The majority in Moore v Madigan commented on a recent second circuit decision about New York:

 

The New York gun law upheld in Kachalsky, although one of the nation’s most restrictive such laws (under the law’s “proper cause” standard, an applicant for a gun permit must demonstrate a need for self-defense greater than that of the general public, such as being the target of personal threats, id. at *3, *8), is less restrictive than Illinois’s law.

Which of our other rights require that we demonstrate a need to exercise them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Accidentally put this in the wrong thread this morning:

 

The majority in Moore v Madigan commented on a recent second circuit decision about New York:

 

The New York gun law upheld in Kachalsky, although one of the nation’s most restrictive such laws (under the law’s “proper cause” standard, an applicant for a gun permit must demonstrate a need for self-defense greater than that of the general public, such as being the target of personal threats, id. at *3, *8), is less restrictive than Illinois’s law.

Which of our other rights require that we demonstrate a need to exercise them?

 

OK, just sign up for marksmanship class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Moore v Madigan majority says, "Onward to terra incognita..."

 

 

 

 

Judge Wilkinson expressed concern in United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458, 475 (4th Cir. 2011), that “there may or may not be a Second Amendment right in some places beyond the home, but we have no idea what those places are, what the criteria for selecting them should be, what sliding scales of scrutiny might apply to them, or any one of a number of other questions. It is not clear in what places public authorities may ban firearms altogether without shouldering the burdens of litigation. The notion that ‘self-defense has to take place wherever [a] person happens to be,’ appears to us to portend all sorts of litigation over schools, airports, parks, public thoroughfares, and various additional government facilities.... The whole matter strikes us as a vast terra incognita that courts should enter only upon necessity and only then by small degree” (citation omitted). Fair enough; but that “vast terra incognita” has been opened to judicial exploration by Heller and McDonald. There is no turning back by the lower federal courts, though we need not speculate on the limits that Illinois may in the interest of public safety constitutionally impose on the carrying of guns in public; it is enough that the limits it has imposed go too far.

 

 

The limits of the second amendment will be expored by our courts for years to come, and if the anti-gunners out in the rest of the world want to act like the ones here and just ignore the whole issue, that's fine with me! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would early Americans have viewed a right to armed self defense that was operative only in the home? The Moore vs Madigan majority speculates:

 

 

 

 

...one doesn’t have to be a historian to realize that a right to keep and bear arms for personal self-defense in the eighteenth century could not rationally have been limited to the home. Suppose one lived in what was then the wild westthe Ohio Valley for example (for until the Louisiana Purchase the Mississippi River was the western boundary of the United States), where there were hostile Indians. One would need from time to time to leave one’s home to obtain supplies from the nearest trading post, and en route one would be as much (probably more) at risk if unarmed as one would be in one’s home unarmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Handguns are not "dangerous and unusual" weapons.

 

Heller treated Blackstone’s reference to “dangerous or unusual weapons” as evidence that the ownership of some types of firearms is not protected by the Second Amendment, 554 U.S. at 627, but the Court cannot have thought all guns are “dangerous or unusual” and can be banned, as otherwise there would be no right to keep a handgun in one’s home for self-defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Moore v Madigan majority on the natural right of self defense...

 

 

 

 

Blackstone described the right of armed self-preservation as a fundamental natural right of Englishmen, on a par with seeking redress in the courts or petitioning the government. 1 Blackstone, supra, at 136, 139–40. The Court in Heller inferred from this that eighteenth-century English law recognized a right to possess guns for resistance, self-preservation, self- defense, and protection against both public and private violence. 554 U.S. at 594. The Court said that American law was the same. Id. at 594–95. And in contrast to the situation in England, in less peaceable America a distinction between keeping arms for self- defense in the home and carrying them outside the home would, as we said, have been irrational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge Williams, dissenting in Moore v Madigan:

 

On the other side of the lethal danger to the State’s citizens is the asserted interest in carrying guns for self-defense, yet even the majority does not contend that carrying guns in public has been shown to be an effective form of self-defense. For example, as the majority acknowledges, University of Pennsylvania researchers found that assault victims are more likely to be armed than the rest of the population. See Maj. Op. at 12-13 (citing Charles C. Branas et al., Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 99 Am. J. of Pub. Health 2034, 2037 (2009)). The researchers examined shootings in Philadelphia and concluded that “gun possession by urban adults was associated with a significantly increased risk of being shot in an assault,” id., which suggests, if anything, that carrying a gun is not effective self-defense. The researchers posited that possible reasons for their findings included that a gun may falsely empower its possessor to overreact, that persons with guns may increase the risk of harm by entering dangerous environments that they normally would have avoided, and that persons bringing guns to an otherwise gun-free conflict may have those guns wrested away and turned on them.

 

People are carrying guns when they get shot. This suggests that they knew they were entering a dangerous area and chose to be ready to defend themselves. People don't always have a choice about which areas they enter and people carrying guns are not immune from being shot before they can defend themselves. If this study really shows that guns are ineffective for defense, it means we should make society safer by disarming our police.

 

Or maybe we should let police have guns, but only inside their homes. :rolleyes:

 

Ummmm..... I would say that its likely that those "urban adults" were armed because they knew they were up to nefarious purposes themselves and engaged in behavior that put them into situations were confrontations were much more likely to get shot. That's such a disengenuous cite by the minority justice. Does he think no one is paying attention???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge Williams, dissenting in Moore v Madigan:

 

On the other side of the lethal danger to the State’s citizens is the asserted interest in carrying guns for self-defense, yet even the majority does not contend that carrying guns in public has been shown to be an effective form of self-defense. For example, as the majority acknowledges, University of Pennsylvania researchers found that assault victims are more likely to be armed than the rest of the population. See Maj. Op. at 12-13 (citing Charles C. Branas et al., Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 99 Am. J. of Pub. Health 2034, 2037 (2009)). The researchers examined shootings in Philadelphia and concluded that “gun possession by urban adults was associated with a significantly increased risk of being shot in an assault,” id., which suggests, if anything, that carrying a gun is not effective self-defense. The researchers posited that possible reasons for their findings included that a gun may falsely empower its possessor to overreact, that persons with guns may increase the risk of harm by entering dangerous environments that they normally would have avoided, and that persons bringing guns to an otherwise gun-free conflict may have those guns wrested away and turned on them.

 

People are carrying guns when they get shot. This suggests that they knew they were entering a dangerous area and chose to be ready to defend themselves. People don't always have a choice about which areas they enter and people carrying guns are not immune from being shot before they can defend themselves. If this study really shows that guns are ineffective for defense, it means we should make society safer by disarming our police.

 

Or maybe we should let police have guns, but only inside their homes. :rolleyes:

 

Ummmm..... I would say that its likely that those "urban adults" were armed because they knew they were up to nefarious purposes themselves and engaged in behavior that put them into situations were confrontations were much more likely to get shot. That's such a disengenuous cite by the minority justice. Does he think no one is paying attention???

 

Seems they allowed for those factors, Jeff.

 

as this was a case–control study, we had the advantage of being able to statistically adjust for numerous confounders of the relationship between gun possession and gun assault. These confounders included important individual-level factors that did not change with time such as having a high-risk occupation, limited education, or an arrest record. Other confounders that we included were situational factors that could have influenced the relationship under study: substance abuse, being outside, having others present, and being in neighborhood surroundings that were impoverished or busy with illicit drug trafficking.

 

They weren't comparing armed shady characters to unarmed law-abiding citizens. They were comparing armed shady characters & law abiding citizens, to a similar mix of unarmed thugs & shady characters.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC2759797/

 

edit - better link:

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/120730057/Study-Investigating-the-Link-Between-Gun-Possession-and-Gun-Assault

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They may have "controlled" for those factors, but their conclusions are seriously suspect:

 

The researchers posited that possible reasons for their findings included that a gun may falsely empower its possessor to overreact, that persons with guns may increase the risk of harm by entering dangerous environments that they normally would have avoided, and that persons bringing guns to an otherwise gun-free conflict may have those guns wrested away and turned on them.

 

Another possible reason would be that people know when they are entering dangerous areas and they carry guns. I know I do.

 

If guns falsely empower people to overreact, we would see a higher violent crime rate among concealed weapons permit holders, not a lower one.

 

I don't deliberately go into dangerous places because I'm carrying a gun and am if anything more careful to avoid trouble.

 

We all know that there is no way an unarmed person can possibly become a threat to an armed person. See the many Zimmerman threads. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I defend the First and the Second (and unsuccessfully, the Tenth).

 

Just call me a "plain nutter."

 

Do you?

 

Drop by the relevant thread and let me know whether you think the second applies outside the home, and whether it is alone in the Bill of Rights in being one for which we must prove a need before exercising it.

 

The silence on those issues makes me ever more suspicious of the gun control crowd's respect for our Bill of Rights.

 

Norm, there are so many gun threads in this joint I can't be bothered to prove my alliance to your lockstep.

 

You know that I own two guns, one of which is an assault rifle. You know that I support Open Carrying of weapons outside of the homes. You know that I detest handguns and that I detest Concealed Carry because I consider neither one an "open and notorious" practice of our Constitutional Rights. You know that I have long supported the need to keep guns just to exercise one's Constitutional Rights even if you never discharge the thing.

...

 

Mike, I'm glad we agree that the second amendment applies outside the home. And thanks for being the third person on the forum to address the question.

 

You should probably buy a handgun, you know, even if you never discharge it. The right to own one is specifically protected now, and it might go away if you don't exercise it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Moore v Madigan majority on the natural right of self defense...

 

 

 

 

Blackstone described the right of armed self-preservation as a fundamental natural right of Englishmen, on a par with seeking redress in the courts or petitioning the government. 1 Blackstone, supra, at 136, 139–40. The Court in Heller inferred from this that eighteenth-century English law recognized a right to possess guns for resistance, self-preservation, self- defense, and protection against both public and private violence. 554 U.S. at 594. The Court said that American law was the same. Id. at 594–95. And in contrast to the situation in England, in less peaceable America a distinction between keeping arms for self- defense in the home and carrying them outside the home would, as we said, have been irrational.

 

The majority continues making the logical case that the right of self defense does not end at your doorstep and should at least include your porch and garage.

 

 

 

 

Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indi- ans. But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower. A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a protective order against a violent ex-husband is more vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under her mattress. But Illinois wants to deny the former claim, while compelled by McDonald to honor the lat- ter. That creates an arbitrary difference. To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Many New Yorkers apparently feel that cooperating with Governor Andrew "Confiscation Is An Option" Cuomo's gun registry is not necessary and are engaging in civil disobedience.

 

Saw that, it's a confrontational path. You'd think they were upset.

 

Well the good news is that burglars and rapists will no longer be lured into homes and shot indiscriminately. They're all much safer now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many New Yorkers apparently feel that cooperating with Governor Andrew "Confiscation Is An Option" Cuomo's gun registry is not necessary and are engaging in civil disobedience.

 

I would imagine a large % of the state's assault rifles are probably going to be "lost" in rowboating accidents very soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

Weapon, what weapon? Idiots, they've just radicalized a chunk of their voter base against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weapon, what weapon? Idiots, they've just radicalized a chunk of their voter base against them.

 

Yeah, its a good thing I sold all my guns..... :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only ever had one gun once and I knew so little about it I had to have a note engraved on the front end.

 

l_093000039_6.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many New Yorkers apparently feel that cooperating with Governor Andrew "Confiscation Is An Option" Cuomo's gun registry is not necessary and are engaging in civil disobedience.

 

I think Cuomo and the gun-grabbers will like that, actually. They need some people to act demented to keep their own base motivated.

 

Last thing they want to do is SWAT them. They will simply issue warrants and let them sit. Speeding ticket...fender benders...over the years they will get them. There will be some local cops that look the other way and nobody will give a shit too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only ever had one gun once and I knew so little about it I had to have a note engraved on the front end.

 

l_093000039_6.jpg

 

Oooh, I have one of those...... errr I mean had one. because of course, errr cough.... uhh I used to have one until I cough lost it.

 

IMG_2093.jpg

 

IMG_2092.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only ever had one gun once and I knew so little about it I had to have a note engraved on the front end.

 

 

 

Oooh, I have one of those...... errr I mean had one. because of course, errr cough.... uhh I used to have one until I cough lost it.

 

 

 

IMG_2092.jpg

 

You know, if you sanded down the heel of that handgrip, did a faux wood finish on the rest of the stock and put the friggin' camo pattern on the magazine, that would look rather unassaultable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only ever had one gun once and I knew so little about it I had to have a note engraved on the front end.

 

 

 

Oooh, I have one of those...... errr I mean had one. because of course, errr cough.... uhh I used to have one until I cough lost it.

 

 

 

IMG_2092.jpg

 

You know, if you sanded down the heel of that handgrip, did a faux wood finish on the rest of the stock and put the friggin' camo pattern on the magazine, that would look rather unassaultable.

 

the sad thing is this bolt action gun would be illegal in NY in a couple of months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably because NY has so darn many crimes committed with mean looking guns like that one.

 

Besides, do you really need such a gun? How much freedom of speech do you really need? Why would anyone but a criminal really need to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures? Who really needs a speedy trial? What kind of sissy thinks criminals do not deserve cruel and unusual punishments?

 

It's time for need-testing of all of our protected rights! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under my reasonable proposal scopes would be banned.

 

You shouldn't shoot at things you can't see clearly with the naked eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can hit a silhouette target at 410 meters (about 1/4 mile) through open sights using the M-14. That's 7.62 or .308 as you prefer. I think at one time Marine Corp marksmen routinely hit targets at 1,000 yards using open sights and a .30/.06

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi-power competitions, I believe, have 1000 yd iron sight matches. So I don't think its out of the realm of possibility.

 

hipowtubbx580.gif

 

 

There are also service rifle matches....

 

hipowgreen2x580.jpg

 

But that would involve scary black rifles with flash suppressors,bayonet lugs and pistol grips and are therefore outlawed. Because no one shoots with them other than to kill school children, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scope or not scope is kind of irrelevant. Man-sized target at 1000 yards is about 2 MOA. A lot of shooters can hit that.

 

 

The bigger issue, at that range, is ballistics.

 

At 500 yards, a .308 or a .30/06 drops about 4 feet. You can have some slop when you calculate exactly how much. At 1000 yards, the same bullet's gonna drop about 30 feet. You'll need to actually take humidity, temperature, and altitude into account when you calculate the drop.

 

You have to be able to read the wind & figure out what it's doing, way over there, where your target is - because by the time your bullet gets there, it's slowed down quite a bit, and the wind is affecting it a lot more than it was earlier, when it was closer, and still travelling fast.

 

BTW, while it was travelling? The earth's spin moved your target 3-6 inches - up, down, left or right, depending on what point of the compass you're shooting at.

 

Barrel twist - whether your bullet's spinning clockwise or counterclockwise - will make it drift a few inches to the left or right.

 

 

A scope doesn't help you with any of that shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct frenchie. I do a LOT of 1000 yd shooting. And its tough with a .308. The wind is the biggest variable of all that Is hard to calculate. I can input all the other stuff and spit out a pretty accurate ballistic drop. But even a 1 mph difference in the wind you think vs the wind the bullets sees is the difference between a hit or miss. I've only ever gotten one cold bore hit at 1K. And that was a lot of luck as the cross wind was not insignificant. My goal at 1000 yds is not just the 1st round hit, but to ALWAYS be able to get a 2nd round hit in under 3-5 secs. With a bolt gun at 1K, that's challenging. I'm probably 50-60% lifetime at a grand for 2nd round hit. My understanding is Mil snipers are graded MORE on their 2nd round hits than they are on the 1st round. Most good ones are probably 99.9% or close for rapid follow up shots.

 

BTW - most US barrels are right hand twist which means the bullet will drift right.

 

Also, the earth's rotation (coriolis effect) not only is dependent on your compassdirection, but what latitude in the world you are. It changes depending ion what hemisphere you are in obviously but it also changes as you move farther north or south towards the equator or the poles.

 

Here's an example I just ran on my ballistic calculator on my iPhone for a .308 using the Mil-Std sniper round ballistics using standard day at sea level.

 

Drop = 38 MOA / 401.7 inches (33 FEET)

Windage = 0 (no wind), 5 mph cross = 4.9 MOA / 51.3 inches (4.2 feet), 10 mph = 9.8 MOA / 102.6" (8.5 FEET) left or right

Bullet speed at target: 1196 fps (still supersonic), 556 ft/lbs energy

Time to target 1.7 secs

 

If I add in spin drift (from rifling) - the no wind drift changes by .9 MOA (or 9.2 inches rights)

If I add in just the coriolis effect alone at 36N and pointed South - it moves 2.6 inches right. It doesn't seem to change much based on compass heading (N, E, S or W). but if I change the latitude , it changes the drift AND drop by enough to miss.

 

Add all those cumulative effects together and you have a tough solution to solve. Ballistic calculators can get you close, but unless you have a wind meter at the target, there is still a lot of guesswork and finesse. Its what make it so fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only ever had one gun once and I knew so little about it I had to have a note engraved on the front end.

 

 

 

Oooh, I have one of those...... errr I mean had one. because of course, errr cough.... uhh I used to have one until I cough lost it.

 

 

 

IMG_2092.jpg

 

You know, if you sanded down the heel of that handgrip, did a faux wood finish on the rest of the stock and put the friggin' camo pattern on the magazine, that would look rather unassaultable.

 

the sad thing is this bolt action gun would be illegal in NY in a couple of months.

 

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many New Yorkers apparently feel that cooperating with Governor Andrew "Confiscation Is An Option" Cuomo's gun registry is not necessary and are engaging in civil disobedience.

 

I think Cuomo and the gun-grabbers will like that, actually. They need some people to act demented to keep their own base motivated.

...

 

Refusing to participate in the registry is not demented, it's civil disobedience with a political purpose, like taking the "wrong" seat on a bus. Who really needs to sit up front, anyway? You still get there if you sit in back.

 

Wait, we're not supposed to question how much of any right we need, unless that right is the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Any thoughts on the topic question? Do you believe the second amendment only applies within the home?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct frenchie. I do a LOT of 1000 yd shooting. And its tough with a .308. The wind is the biggest variable of all that Is hard to calculate. I can input all the other stuff and spit out a pretty accurate ballistic drop. But even a 1 mph difference in the wind you think vs the wind the bullets sees is the difference between a hit or miss. I've only ever gotten one cold bore hit at 1K. And that was a lot of luck as the cross wind was not insignificant. My goal at 1000 yds is not just the 1st round hit, but to ALWAYS be able to get a 2nd round hit in under 3-5 secs. With a bolt gun at 1K, that's challenging. I'm probably 50-60% lifetime at a grand for 2nd round hit. My understanding is Mil snipers are graded MORE on their 2nd round hits than they are on the 1st round. Most good ones are probably 99.9% or close for rapid follow up shots.

 

BTW - most US barrels are right hand twist which means the bullet will drift right.

 

Also, the earth's rotation (coriolis effect) not only is dependent on your compassdirection, but what latitude in the world you are. It changes depending ion what hemisphere you are in obviously but it also changes as you move farther north or south towards the equator or the poles.

 

Here's an example I just ran on my ballistic calculator on my iPhone for a .308 using the Mil-Std sniper round ballistics using standard day at sea level.

 

Drop = 38 MOA / 401.7 inches (33 FEET)

Windage = 0 (no wind), 5 mph cross = 4.9 MOA / 51.3 inches (4.2 feet), 10 mph = 9.8 MOA / 102.6" (8.5 FEET) left or right

Bullet speed at target: 1196 fps (still supersonic), 556 ft/lbs energy

Time to target 1.7 secs

 

If I add in spin drift (from rifling) - the no wind drift changes by .9 MOA (or 9.2 inches rights)

If I add in just the coriolis effect alone at 36N and pointed South - it moves 2.6 inches right. It doesn't seem to change much based on compass heading (N, E, S or W). but if I change the latitude , it changes the drift AND drop by enough to miss.

 

Add all those cumulative effects together and you have a tough solution to solve. Ballistic calculators can get you close, but unless you have a wind meter at the target, there is still a lot of guesswork and finesse. Its what make it so fun!

 

Like I said: black magic math. :blink:

 

Here's what I know & understand:

 

When I was 16, and shooting twice a week every week at an indoor range with 22's... the half-dozen times a year I'd get to shoot a .308 on an outdoor range, I could group around 9 inches at 500 yards. Give me 10 rounds to adjust my zero, the next ten would be centered on the bullseye.

 

So, in theory, I should be able to hit an 18" target at 1000, right? 2 moa is 2 moa, regardless of distance.

 

Nope.

 

Never even got close. In real life, even at 750 yards, I couldn't hit the (3 foot wide) board often enough to figure out what I was doing wrong.

 

 

500 yards is a skill. 1000 yards is an art.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone here have a thousand yard living room? Sounds like you are talking about outdoor activities, not stuff that is allowed in the home. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not exactly something you can do in a city, either, Tom. Or even the suburbs.

 

Rule #4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
some of you aren't doing anyone any favors....least of all 2 amendment and gun ownership advocates.

 

Are you one?

 

Do you think the second amendment applies outside the home?

 

That seems to be a hard question around here, but the 7th Circuit answered it recently.

i believe the second amendment applies until it infringes on someone else's rights. for example....joe blow has a right to refuse access to his property (bar, business, home) by someone who is armed, if he chooses. i think i should have a right to carry my arms, weapons, guns etc(if i owned them) anywhere on my property, or public property with the exception of schools (not college)...i have an unexplainable issue with that, or anywhere else unless told otherwise by the property owner. clear? if not, let me know and i will try to clarify.

 

Clear enough, and close enough to my own views to take all the fun out of arguing with you. ;)

 

Don't move to Chicago!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you're here, ramwel, how about answering the boring topic question?

From the thread title? No. I do not think the 2nd applies only in the home. I favor concealed carry by those who have trained and meet the requirements. I think gun free zones are foolish and support so called super carry permits for sensitive zones like schools, stadiums and civic centers. i do think the level of training should be higher for those zones and super carry laws accomplish that. Society has changed. the idiots running around open carry with rifles and shit are just scaring people and doing more harm than good. I heard on the radio today that some moron walked into a kroger with a AR slung across his back. Sent the entire place into panic. Nice job jackass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i do like the gun safe.... :rolleyes:

 

Ahhh the leftist war on women (to disarm them)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is nice... Gun Vault... She ought to use more than a two-digit code, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you're here, ramwel, how about answering the boring topic question?

From the thread title? No. I do not think the 2nd applies only in the home. I favor concealed carry by those who have trained and meet the requirements. I think gun free zones are foolish and support so called super carry permits for sensitive zones like schools, stadiums and civic centers. i do think the level of training should be higher for those zones and super carry laws accomplish that. Society has changed. the idiots running around open carry with rifles and shit are just scaring people and doing more harm than good. I heard on the radio today that some moron walked into a kroger with a AR slung across his back. Sent the entire place into panic. Nice job jackass.

 

If you look closely at USC 18 section 922 (q), you can see that under federal law we CWP holders do not affect interstate commerce when we get near schools:

 

(I) the Congress has the power, under the interstate commerce clause and other provisions of the Constitution, to enact measures to ensure the integrity and safety of the Nation’s schools by enactment of this subsection.

(2)

(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

( B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State...

 

It seems to me that CWP holders have not created any interstate commercial problems since that law was passed almost 20 years ago, so I question the need for further licensing restrictions to create a super-carry permit.

 

Your post did not seem to do the job, so let me light the Cliffsignal and summon MikeW to fuss at you about open and notorious exercise of rights. ;)

 

cliffsignal.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is nice... Gun Vault... She ought to use more than a two-digit code, though.

 

She ought to use a mechanical safe, not one that depends on batteries and might open if a small child bumps it.

 

Don't trust gun locks, especially cheap ones, even from names like Master and Remington.

 

Gun locks that suck

 

Don't trust any gun safe that depends on batteries. Mechanical is the way to go. Battery powered ones have two failure modes: call a locksmith or the friggin thing pops open when the batteries die!

 

Gun safes that suck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is nice... Gun Vault... She ought to use more than a two-digit code, though.

 

She ought to use a mechanical safe, not one that depends on batteries and might open if a small child bumps it.

 

Don't trust gun locks, especially cheap ones, even from names like Master and Remington.

 

Gun locks that suck

 

Don't trust any gun safe that depends on batteries. Mechanical is the way to go. Battery powered ones have two failure modes: call a locksmith or the friggin thing pops open when the batteries die!

 

Gun safes that suck

What safe would you recommend Tom? I use a gun vault micro vault. Similar but different from the one in the video. It opens either by mechanical key or keypad. It won't automatically pop open if the battery goes dead or if you shake and beat on it. I tried.

 

Tell us, what meets the standards of your holiness, is secure, yet will allow fast access?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are asking the wrong guy in the wrong forum if you actually want a well-informed opinion. I'd suggest asking on thehighroad.org.

 

That said, I know of two failure modes for electrical safes, and the "pop open" one is not the common one. The common one is, as I said, call a locksmith. If you have a key, that's a substitute that seems better, but is not exactly fast access.

 

I have said before that I'm not interested in discussing exactly how our guns are secured against theft, but my view of fast-access, single-gun safes is that they are not for theft prevention, but for kid prevention. So I'll break my own rule and say that we have at least one push-button type mechanical fast-access handgun safe in one or more of our houses. I like the push buttons because I can operate such a safe in pitch blackness, and because it does not depend on batteries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are asking the wrong guy in the wrong forum if you actually want a well-informed opinion. I'd suggest asking on thehighroad.org.

 

That said, I know of two failure modes for electrical safes, and the "pop open" one is not the common one. The common one is, as I said, call a locksmith. If you have a key, that's a substitute that seems better, but is not exactly fast access.

 

I have said before that I'm not interested in discussing exactly how our guns are secured against theft, but my view of fast-access, single-gun safes is that they are not for theft prevention, but for kid prevention. So I'll break my own rule and say that we have at least one push-button type mechanical fast-access handgun safe in one or more of our houses. I like the push buttons because I can operate such a safe in pitch blackness, and because it does not depend on batteries.

i'm seriously interested. i did not know there was a non electric push button and i looked at many. do you have a link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She ought to use a mechanical safe, not one that depends on batteries and might open if a small child bumps it.

 

Don't trust gun locks, especially cheap ones, even from names like Master and Remington.

 

Gun locks that suck

 

Don't trust any gun safe that depends on batteries. Mechanical is the way to go. Battery powered ones have two failure modes: call a locksmith or the friggin thing pops open when the batteries die!

 

Gun safes that suck

 

 

shows an adult familiar with locks and stuff getting into a GunVault; if a 9 year old can figure that out all on his own, I'd be amazed.

 

My first load of batteries lasted more than 5 years, and with plenty of warning that they were on the way out. Not so worried, though I'll look up that V-Line just the same. Besides, if it's as "easy" to open up as that video shows, the owner won't need a locksmith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She ought to use a mechanical safe, not one that depends on batteries and might open if a small child bumps it.

 

Don't trust gun locks, especially cheap ones, even from names like Master and Remington.

 

Gun locks that suck

 

Don't trust any gun safe that depends on batteries. Mechanical is the way to go. Battery powered ones have two failure modes: call a locksmith or the friggin thing pops open when the batteries die!

 

Gun safes that suck

 

 

shows an adult familiar with locks and stuff getting into a GunVault; if a 9 year old can figure that out all on his own, I'd be amazed.

 

My first load of batteries lasted more than 5 years, and with plenty of warning that they were on the way out. Not so worried, though I'll look up that V-Line just the same. Besides, if it's as "easy" to open up as that video shows, the owner won't need a locksmith.

 

I wrecked the transmitter for my RC sailboat by leaving batteries in it for a lot less than 5 years. They sometimes rupture and leak. Mechanical locks never do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do permitting, background checks, waiting periods, registration and insurance interfere with your right of self defense?

 

Do trigger lock requirements and safety tests interfere with your right of self defense?

 

Do minimum age for purchasing guns and ammo interfere with your right to self defense?

 

Does California's restriction on open carry of long arms interfere with your right of self defense?

 

Do licensing requirements for fully automatic weapons interfere with you right of self defense?

 

Heck, do assault rifle restrictions and magazine limits interfere with your right of self defense?

Yes, unreasonable registration requirements do interfere with second amendment rights.

 

Yes, the Supreme Court found in Heller that trigger locks do too.

 

I have no problem with the age requirements.

 

California's restrictions bring up the question the 7th Circuit addressed recently and I posed in another thread: does the second amendment apply outside the home?

 

I question the need for the closure of the machine gun registry, so the answer to that one is yes until I see sensible reasons for the closure.

 

A limit of two rounds only, as recently proposed by Rep. Nadler, unquestionably goes too far in my view, so the answer to the last one is yes.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong Tom (as I know you will), but didn't Heller essentially erase the Militia clause? If true, how does that comport with the 2nd Amendment outside of the home? I haven't seen much about it, but add to that, in the first 100 years of our country there are no legal precedents for the right to bear arms at all. So being a modern invention, how have gun laws grown within the scope the original intent of the founders?

 

They said that the militia clause lays out the primary purpose for the amendment, namely preventing the government from disarming the people.

 

Is the primary purpose of our other protected rights also the only purpose? I don't think the primary purpose of the fourth amendment was to make abortion legal, do you? Does that mean our right to privacy can't include medical privacy?

 

The primary purpose of the militia clause was, for most of my life, to make the second amendment legally inapplicable to individuals. Those days are over, at least until the Supreme Court reverses themselves or an amendment is passed. I think our right to self defense extends beyond our homes, and even (shockingly, I know) outside of our attached garages, porches and yards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The right of self defense is separate from the Second Amendment.

 

Judge Williams, dissenting in Moore vs Madigan, seemed to think that the question before him revolved around whether the right of self defense existed outside the home. That's an odd thing for him to think if the second amendment is unrelated to self defense.

 

The opening of his dissent:

 

 

 

 

WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge, dissenting. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald made clear that persons in the state of Illinois (unless otherwise disqualified) must be allowed to have handguns in their homes for self-defense. But those cases did not resolve the question in this casewhether the Second Amendment also requires a state to allow persons to carry ready-to-use firearms in public for potential self- defense.

 

Why add "for self-defense" to the end of that sentence if having handguns is unrelated to self-defense? Why add "for potential self-defense" to the second one if having handguns is unrelated to self-defense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge, dissenting. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald made clear that persons in the state of Illinois (unless otherwise disqualified) must be allowed to have handguns in their homes for self-defense. But those cases did not resolve the question in this case—whether the Second Amendment also requires a state to allow persons to carry ready-to-use firearms in public for potential self- defense.

 

His dissent is saying the 2A lets you have guns for Self Defense. Great. That application of the 2A has nothing to do with your Right of Self Defense.

 

Your response does not answer the above questions. Why would he reference self-defense in those two sentences if he considered it a separate subject?

 

Williams also said this:

 

 

 

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.

 

We have warned against “treat[ing] Heller as containing broader holdings than the Court set out to establish: that the Second Amendment creates individual rights, one of which is keeping operable handguns at home for self-defense.

 

...

 

The Illinois statutes safeguard the core right to bear arms for self-defense in the home...

 

There he goes again! Two more references to the purpose of the second amendment being "for self-defense." Must be another Favre fan! Or maybe he has some other reason for connecting unrelated things...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why add "for self-defense" to the end of that sentence if having handguns is unrelated to self-defense?

 

The judge could just as well have said target practice. It doesn't add anything to your 2A rights and it doesn't add anything to your Right of Self Defense. Having a gun handy may make you better equipped for self defense but being (or getting) better equipped has nothing to do with your Right of Self Defense.

 

Why add "for potential self-defense" to the second one if having handguns is unrelated to self-defense?

 

The judge could just as well have said for potential target practice. Same as above.

 

Your Right of Self Defense is in the event of an attack. It doesn't extend after the attack Lorena Bobbit style. It doesn't precede the attack Prepper style. It is in the event of an attack. You can defend yourself with an illegally modified AK47 if necessary or with a hardcover Jane Austen novel. Your Right of Self Defense doesn't let you buy that illegally modifed AK47 nor does it get you free cable. Your Right of Self Defense is separate from the 2A. Quite separate.

 

I can explain this to you but then I can't understand it for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why add "for self-defense" to the end of that sentence if having handguns is unrelated to self-defense?

 

The judge could just as well have said target practice. It doesn't add anything to your 2A rights and it doesn't add anything to your Right of Self Defense. Having a gun handy may make you better equipped for self defense but being (or getting) better equipped has nothing to do with your Right of Self Defense.

 

Why add "for potential self-defense" to the second one if having handguns is unrelated to self-defense?

 

The judge could just as well have said for potential target practice. Same as above.

 

Your Right of Self Defense is in the event of an attack. It doesn't extend after the attack Lorena Bobbit style. It doesn't precede the attack Prepper style. It is in the event of an attack. You can defend yourself with an illegally modified AK47 if necessary or with a hardcover Jane Austen novel. Your Right of Self Defense doesn't let you buy that illegally modifed AK47 nor does it get you free cable. Your Right of Self Defense is separate from the 2A. Quite separate.

 

I can explain this to you but then I can't understand it for you.

 

A right without the means to exercise it is meaningless. The second amendment is about the means to exercise our rights. I doubt the judge would try to make the case that the right to target practice applies only inside the home, but he did make that case regarding self defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a Second Amendmenty Right to buy a pistol (assuming non Felon, min age, ...).

 

You do not have a Right of Self Defense to buy a pistol.

 

You do not have a Second Amendmenty Right to kill anyone.

 

You do have a Right of Self Defense to use reasonable force against someone who is threatening you if and only when you feel you are in danger.

 

These are very different and unrelated Rights.

 

Requiring trigger locks does not restrict your Right of Self Defense. It may affect how you go about your self defense but that is another matter entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why add "for self-defense" to the end of that sentence if having handguns is unrelated to self-defense?

 

The judge could just as well have said target practice. It doesn't add anything to your 2A rights and it doesn't add anything to your Right of Self Defense. Having a gun handy may make you better equipped for self defense but being (or getting) better equipped has nothing to do with your Right of Self Defense.

...

 

The purpose of the right is relevant to his analysis, and the analysis breaks down in amusing ways if you try to substitute "target practice" for "self-defense" in his arguments.

 

 

 

 

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 target practice there makes sense in light of the home-as-castle history.

 

...

 

 

 

 

So while there are a variety of other sources and authorities, the ones I have discussed suggest that there was not a clear historical consensus that persons could carry guns in public for target practice.

 

...

 

 

 

 

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 target practice extends beyond the home.

 

...

 

 

 

 

The Supreme Court made clear in Heller and McDonald that its holdings only applied to handguns in the home for target practice.

 

...

 

 

 

 

The plaintiffs also point out that Heller stated that the need for target practice is “most acute” in the home

 

 

Does any of that really make sense to you? Still sticking with the line that the judge could have made his case about a second amendment designed to protect our ability to shoot targets, not our ability to defend ourselves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are talking about the Second Amendment and what some of its legal applications (uses) are. One of its applications might be hunting. Another might be target practice. Still another might be self defense.

 

None of that has anything to do with your Right of Self Defense. The Second Amendment could be eliminated altogether and you would still have the exact same legal Right of Self Defense. They are separate Rights.

 

The burdensome trigger lock "tax" which you pay to the gun industry which you blame on the political industry has nothing to do with your Right of Self Defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are talking about the Second Amendment and what some of its legal applications (uses) are. One of its applications might be hunting. Another might be target practice. Still another might be self defense.

 

None of that has anything to do with your Right of Self Defense. The Second Amendment could be eliminated altogether and you would still have the exact same legal Right of Self Defense. They are separate Rights.

 

I agree with your second paragraph, but still have problems seeing how the judge could "just as well" make his argument about target practice within the home. I also question whether he could make it "just as well" about hunting within the home. Self defense is the only application for which his argument makes any sense at all.

 

No pigs have come into my trailer or my little guest house as yet, but the one that made the mistake of standing around in my yard continues to be yummy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That phrase you keep using, common use. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

 

This from the guy who thinks target practice and hunting are indoor activities? :lol:

 

 

That made no sense.

 

No, your argument that Judge Williams could have made the same arguments by substituting "target practice" or "hunting" for "self defense" is what makes no sense. Target practice and hunting do not take place inside homes, which is the only place he was arguing that the second amendment applies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to be hung up on the phrase "in your home". It means nothing with respect to the 2A, your Right of Self Defense or the dissent in Heller.

 

The Judge was giving a lawful use of a firearm, self defense in your home. He could just as well said target practice or self defense in your boat.

 

These are all examples of lawful uses of a gun. They do not extend any Rights. They are not equal as you are trying (vainly) to say I said.

 

Good luck with your movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to be hung up on the phrase "in your home". It means nothing with respect to the 2A, your Right of Self Defense or the dissent in Heller.

 

The Judge was giving a lawful use of a firearm, self defense in your home. He could just as well said target practice or self defense in your boat.

 

These are all examples of lawful uses of a gun. They do not extend any Rights. They are not equal as you are trying (vainly) to say I said.

 

Good luck with your movie.

 

If it means nothing, why did the 7th Circuit address it and why was Judge Williams writing about it?

 

In case you have not realized it yet, the topic case, Moore vs Madigan, was about whether the second amendment applies only in the home, hence the topic question.

 

Judge Williams would have a hard time making the argument that he did if he were trying to defend target practice or hunting within the home instead of self-defense. You said he "could just as well have said target practice" in his argument, but he could not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we can then conclude that I didn't say ("think") what you said. I'll thank you for acknowledging that.

 

As for the Circuit Court reviewing the Heller case that is after all what they do. Arguably it is why lower court judges even bother to write dissents.

 

Actually it seems the dissent isn't from Heller but from some other case that cites Heller. There are doubtlessly many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we can then conclude that I didn't say ("think") what you said. I'll thank you for acknowledging that.

 

As for the Circuit Court reviewing the Heller case that is after all what they do. Arguably it is why lower court judges even bother to write dissents.

 

Actually it seems the dissent isn't from Heller but from some other case that cites Heller. There are doubtlessly many.

 

You said this in reference to Judge Williams' dissent:

 

The judge could just as well have said target practice.

 

The judge was not dissenting in the Heller case. That is what Supreme Court justices do, and it was already done by Breyer and Stevens. FYI, there is no one named Williams on the Supreme Court.

 

The 7th Circuit was not reviewing the Heller case, and Circuit Courts do not "review" Supreme Court decisions. It works the other way: the Supreme Court sometimes reviews their decisions. The 7th Circuit was doing what they do: deciding new issues in light of precedents such as the Heller case. In this case, the new issue was whether the second amendment applies outside the home or not. They decided it does, with Williams dissenting and saying it only applies inside the home.

 

Yes, there have been many cases like this one, deciding the various issues that arise now that the second amendment protects an individual right. More will keep coming for the next several decades.

 

Man, this is like explaining this stuff to a kindergarten student. You have no clue at all what we have been discussing, do you? I can explain it to you, but can't understand it for you. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we can then conclude that I didn't say ("think") what you said. I'll thank you for acknowledging that.

 

As for the Circuit Court reviewing the Heller case that is after all what they do. Arguably it is why lower court judges even bother to write dissents.

 

Actually it seems the dissent isn't from Heller but from some other case that cites Heller. There are doubtlessly many.

 

You said this in reference to Judge Williams' dissent:

 

The judge could just as well have said target practice.

 

Yes that is what I said. I did not say:

 

 

FWIW, I will now say that you can shoot target practice indoors. I'd guess that most target practice is shot indoors. Not that this matters in the slightest.

 

More than that, I am not interested in parsing your misreadings of cases on the Second Amendment.

 

Again, good luck with you movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very few people have a shooting range in their home, and the case we are discussing was about whether the second amendment applies inside the home.

 

Do you still think that Judge Williams could have made his case that the second amendment does not apply outside the home by referencing target practice instead of self-defense? If you do, you are indeed saying that target practice is an activity that takes place inside the home. If you do not, feel free to correct yourself and we can move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very few people have a shooting range in their home, and the case we are discussing was about whether the second amendment applies inside the home.

 

Blah blah blah.

 

You didn't say home. You said indoor. Learn to read, counselor.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very few people have a shooting range in their home, and the case we are discussing was about whether the second amendment applies inside the home.

 

Do you still think that Judge Williams could have made his case that the second amendment does not apply outside the home by referencing target practice instead of self-defense? If you do, you are indeed saying that target practice is an activity that takes place inside the home. If you do not, feel free to correct yourself and we can move on.

 

You didn't say home. You said indoor. Learn to read, counselor.

 

 

I thought the link to this thread put it in context, but didn't figure you would be so desperate as to try to distract by bringing up the unrelated subject of indoor shooting ranges in a discussion of whether the second amendment applies only inside the home.

 

It sometimes amuses me when I'm wrong, and this is one of those times. The fact that we seem to be annoying Gator is icing on the cake. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, I will now say that you can shoot target practice indoors. I'd guess that most target practice is shot indoors.

Except that this thread is about Chicago, where they both mandated and prohibited target practice at indoor ranges.

 

You can inform yourself about Ezell v Chicago here if you do not believe me.

 

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=423216

 

The case has been dragging on since late 2010. It is clear at this point that Chicago will ultimately have to allow firing ranges and/or drop the training requirement from their laws, but they are going to have to be dragged into grudging compliance with second amendment rights.

 

It is hard for me to believe that anyone wants to live in a place so nonsensical. Even Bull Gator recognizes that we should be allowed to take our guns into our yards and garages. Let's see if Ezell v Chicago similarly fails that nonsense test...

 

Hey Gator, do you think that mandated training should also be prohibited? FWIW, Chicago's lame excuse is that people can leave the city for training, and they have tried amending the laws to allow ranges and thus moot the case, but could not bring themselves to do it in a way that convinced the judge, who is very sympathetic to the city's side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

So why exactly did Obama give assault weapons to member of the Mexican drug cartel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why exactly did Obama give assault weapons to member of the Mexican drug cartel?

They promised to keep them disassembled in their homes and never, ever venture as far as the porch or garage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The burdensome trigger lock "tax" which you pay to the gun industry which you blame on the political industry has nothing to do with your Right of Self Defense.

 

The Heller decision said otherwise:

 

We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens if we Olsonize Scalia's words? He could just as well have said target practice...

 

We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of target practice and is hence unconstitutional.

 

...um... if you believe that target practice takes place in the home, and that target practice is the core lawful purpose of the second amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens if we Olsonize Scalia's words? He could just as well have said target practice...

 

We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of target practice and is hence unconstitutional.

 

...um... if you believe that target practice takes place in the home, and that target practice is the core lawful purpose of the second amendment.

what do you believe is the core lawful purpose of the second amendment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens if we Olsonize Scalia's words? He could just as well have said target practice...

 

We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of target practice and is hence unconstitutional.

 

...um... if you believe that target practice takes place in the home, and that target practice is the core lawful purpose of the second amendment.

what do you believe is the core lawful purpose of the second amendment?

 

To protect the pre-existing natural right of self defense by preventing the government from disarming the people. That's the short answer anyway. I think Scalia did a pretty good job with the longer answer here. The legal answer is, of course, whatever the Supreme Court says it is, regardless of what I believe, so Judge Williams adopted that view in his dissent in the topic case:

 

The Illinois statutes safeguard the core right to bear arms for target practice in the home

 

Oops, slightly Olsonized it, but you get the idea. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

what do you believe is the core lawful purpose of the second amendment?

 

To protect the pre-existing natural right of self defense by preventing the government from disarming the people. That's the short answer anyway. I think Scalia did a pretty good job with the longer answer here. The legal answer is, of course, whatever the Supreme Court says it is, regardless of what I believe, so Judge Williams adopted that view in his dissent in the topic case:

 

The Illinois statutes safeguard the core right to bear arms for target practice in the home

 

Oops, slightly Olsonized it, but you get the idea. ;)

i was looking for what you think the core lawful purpose of the second is.

your answer is this, correct?

To protect the pre-existing natural right of self defense by preventing the government from disarming the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was looking for what you think the core lawful purpose of the second is.

your answer is this, correct?

To protect the pre-existing natural right of self defense by preventing the government from disarming the people.

Correct. At least, that's what I think it should be. What it is is what the SCOTUS says it is, which is darn close to what I think it should be in this case.

 

As the topic case shows, we're still figuring out what that means. Judge Williams thinks that the core purpose of target practice is only protected within the home, but the other two 7th Circuit judges who heard the case think the core purpose extends beyond the home into public areas such as attached garages, porches, and back yards, and maybe even further...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny, I'm starting to believe a lot of these decisions are ill conceived and not well thought out at all. Do you think any of these Judges considered the "homeless" problem and how that figures into their ancillary rights of self-defense or do the "homeless" completely sacrifice their 2nd Amendment rights because they exist outside of the home? or how can one be restricted from a weapon outside the home while allowing transport to the home in the first place? How did it get there and can one be arrested and charged for moving it outside the home to the home? I think we'll see a lot more rewrites of law before we completely understand the 2nd amendment in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny, I'm starting to believe a lot of these decisions are ill conceived and not well thought out at all. Do you think any of these Judges considered the "homeless" problem and how that figures into their ancillary rights of self-defense or do the "homeless" completely sacrifice their 2nd Amendment rights because they exist outside of the home?

 

That's a very good question and we should ask Kai the Hero (see GA thread by that name). He calls himself "home free" but that seems clumsy to me, but "good thing there was a hatchet wielding homeless man around to save the day" is still the funniest quote of the month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moreover, exercising your Right of Self Defense has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. If the Second Amendment was repealed altogether, you'd still have an unchanged Right of Self Defense.

 

What do you believe should be the core purpose of the second amendment?