Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Join MD Shooters
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 25th, 2021, 01:40 PM #71
TheOriginalMexicanBob's Avatar
TheOriginalMexicanBob TheOriginalMexicanBob is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Frederick
Posts: 19,005
TheOriginalMexicanBob TheOriginalMexicanBob is offline
Senior Member
TheOriginalMexicanBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Frederick
Posts: 19,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by whistlersmother View Post
Okaayyyy... disagree that the 2A is about self-defense...
There's a fine point here depending on how it's defined. Self-defense in the common use today is most likely defined as defending oneself or one's family or one's home against criminal acts. I believe the Framers of the Constitution more likely defined it as self-defense against an arbitrary and tyrannical government.

Under the heading of "self-defense" all definitions can be included...defending one's life...one's home...at home or in public...but the primary historical definition is defense against an over-reaching and dictatorial government.
__________________
Socialism is like a Jedi Mind Trick...it only works on the weak minded. TheOriginalMexican Bob
I'm an American...your approval is not required. TheOriginalMexicanBob
Good people do not need laws to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws. Plato
TheOriginalMexicanBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2021, 01:47 PM #72
whistlersmother whistlersmother is offline
Peace through strength
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Fulton, MD
Posts: 6,861
whistlersmother whistlersmother is offline
Peace through strength
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Fulton, MD
Posts: 6,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalMexicanBob View Post
There's a fine point here depending on how it's defined. Self-defense in the common use today is most likely defined as defending oneself or one's family or one's home against criminal acts. I believe the Framers of the Constitution more likely defined it as self-defense against an arbitrary and tyrannical government.

Under the heading of "self-defense" all definitions can be included...defending one's life...one's home...at home or in public...but the primary historical definition is defense against an over-reaching and dictatorial government.
The common use today hides the original intent.

And then we start getting into the "police provide for the defense of the people from criminals" argument.
__________________
How strangely will the tools of a tyrant pervert the plain meaning of words! - Samuel Adams
whistlersmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2021, 01:58 PM #73
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,697
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by whistlersmother View Post
Okaayyyy... disagree that the 2A is about self-defense...

These suits may be making it about self-defense, which you may have a point.

I do see this as a bow shot across the "text and tradition" spoken about when Kav or Gorsuch was confirmed.

Essentially, we don't like guns, so ANY reasoning isn't good enough.
Your right, the 2A is not entirely about self-defense. I believe Heller said "central to" this right is "the inherent right of self-defense"(Heller. at 628)

I don't believe the there is a problem with the text part, it is the history and tradition part where there are issues. There have been numerous restrictions placed on the right in the past as the majority in this case rightfully points out. The problem is that you need to put all of these restrictions into perspective. Young did a OK job trying to put some perspective on these restriction, but did it in a way that did not clarify any underlying principles.

Everyone thinks that this is easy and all you need to do is say "What part of shall not infringe don't you understand?" There have been historical restrictions on the right and that you need to be able to articulate underlying principles that govern them.

These cases are poorly argued because they don't really address these underlying principles.
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2021, 02:55 PM #74
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 69
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 69
The 9th's use of lip service to "history, text and tradition", to blow this case up demonstrates the flaws in that system ...

Just like other courts contorting around intermediate scrutiny.
ddestruel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2021, 03:11 PM #75
JPG's Avatar
JPG JPG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Calvert County
Posts: 5,398
JPG JPG is offline
Senior Member
JPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Calvert County
Posts: 5,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalMexicanBob View Post
The 9th ruled that Hawaiian tradition trumps the Constitution and the Second Amendment when it comes to carrying a firearms outside of the home...both open and concealed carry. The judges seemed to have forgotten or simply ignored the fact that when Hawaii became a state it had to adopt the United Constitution which trumps all previous laws and traditions.

Based upon that reasoning states that legalized slavery before adoption of the Constitution, the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment can simply ignore it and continue with legalized indentured servitude. The rule of law lost big time in this decision.
Why do you think they are pushing white privilege and reparations? They are going to make white men slaves to repay all debts that white guys owe society for their millennia of "supremacy".
JPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2021, 03:33 PM #76
MigraineMan's Avatar
MigraineMan MigraineMan is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Frederick County
Posts: 13,964
MigraineMan MigraineMan is online now
Senior Member
MigraineMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Frederick County
Posts: 13,964
Quote:
Our review of more than 700 years of English and American legal history reveals a strong theme: government has the power to regulate arms in the public square.
Seriously? We declared independence and threw off the shackles of The Crown, and you're going to use that as a foundational basis for the US Constitution?
Quote:
History is messy and, as we anticipated, the record is not uniform, but the overwhelming evidence from the states’ constitutions and statutes, the cases, and the commentaries confirms that we have never assumed that individuals have an unfettered right to carry weapons in public spaces.
You're not getting it. Our forefathers wrote the Constitution to prohibit the US government from committing the same tyrannical acts that were being levied upon the Colonies from across the pond. The First Amendment is all about having the ability to criticize the government without fear of being tossed in the dungeon, but hey, there's 1000 years of Western European history that indicates such behavior is commonplace. Might as well declare that the 1A doesn't protect speech outside the home.

Then they cite Heller:
Quote:
The heart of the Second Amendment is “defense of hearth and home.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 635.
and immediately insinuate that the defense of hearth and home is exclusive to everywhere else:
Quote:
The power of the government to regulate carrying arms in the public square does not infringe in any way on the right of an individual to defend his home or business.
Man, I hope they stretched before doing these contortions. "Hey, we can't ban the 2A outright, but if we chop it into 'open carry' and 'concealed carry' chunks, we can ban it piecemeal."
MigraineMan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2021, 03:42 PM #77
DanGuy48 DanGuy48 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 4,850
DanGuy48 DanGuy48 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 4,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by whistlersmother View Post
The common use today hides the original intent.

And then we start getting into the "police provide for the defense of the people from criminals" argument.
Except they really don’t according to Warren v. DC. Of course I’m sure that makes no difference to them anyway.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Member MSI, SAF
NRA certified RSO, Basic Pistol, Home Firearm Safety
Work hard, shoot straight, play fair, fight dirty
DanGuy48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2021, 04:31 PM #78
rascal rascal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,175
rascal rascal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
Your right, the 2A is not entirely about self-defense. I believe Heller said "central to" this right is "the inherent right of self-defense"(Heller. at 628)

I don't believe the there is a problem with the text part, it is the history and tradition part where there are issues. There have been numerous restrictions placed on the right in the past as the majority in this case rightfully points out. The problem is that you need to put all of these restrictions into perspective. Young did a OK job trying to put some perspective on these restriction, but did it in a way that did not clarify any underlying principles.

Everyone thinks that this is easy and all you need to do is say "What part of shall not infringe don't you understand?" There have been historical restrictions on the right and that you need to be able to articulate underlying principles that govern them.

These cases are poorly argued because they don't really address these underlying principles.
it is not really about poorly argued or not, or the intent of the constitution -- it is about poltical views of the federal justices. That is where gun control cases align and to deny it is denial of the record and the clear partisan alignment of judges on almost all on gun control.

These cases are NOT decided by argument, or merit, but by poltical outcomes of numbers of appoints by winners of presidential elections.
rascal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2021, 04:41 PM #79
rascal rascal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,175
rascal rascal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,175
Why is this a surprise? this is Marylandshooters right? The de facto near no issue that "may issue" entails is the law in Maryland.

It is a virtual certainty that most of the Democrat judges on the majority Democrat the ninth circuit don't think you have any Heller rights all.

These are political decisions, resulting from elections. What is citied in the decisions is not the logic they used but a cover for their partisan based pre-existing views.

There are some issues where existing partisan poltical views do not correspond to decisions by federal judges. EG some areas of first fourth and fifth amendment. But the partisan alignment is extremely strong on gun control issues.
rascal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2021, 04:47 PM #80
rambling_one's Avatar
rambling_one rambling_one is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bowie, MD
Posts: 5,614
Images: 1
rambling_one rambling_one is offline
Senior Member
rambling_one's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bowie, MD
Posts: 5,614
Images: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michigander08 View Post
The en banc U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 7-4 decision on the ruling.

MAJORITY

Judge Sidney Thomas - appointed by President Bill Clinton

Judge Margaret McKeown - appointed by President Bill Clinton

Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw - appointed by President Bill Clinton

Judge William Fletcher - appointed by President Bill Clinton

Judge Richard Clinton - appointed by President George W Bush

Judge Jay Bybee - appointed by President George W Bush

Judge Michelle Friedland - appointed by President Barack Obama

DISSENT

Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain - appointed by President Ronald Reagan

Judge Consuelo Callahan - appointed by President George W Bush

Judge Sandra Ikuta - appointed by President George W Bush

Judge Ryan Nelson - appointed by President Donald Trump
I erroneously thought judges appointed by R's can at least read English. Their names suggest I have over thought this.
__________________
AZ, FL, MD, NH, PA, UT, VA Permits
Berwyn Rod & Gun Club - Life Member
MD Hunter Safety Instructor - 27 Years
MD Designated Collector
MSI Executive Member (Former Board)
SAF - Life Member
NRA - Life Member (Benefactor)

U.S. Navy Veteran

PLEASE CONSIDER JOINING MSI

rambling_one is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2021, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service