Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: National Park carry defacto side-effect of Heller?

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    333

    Post imported post

    From page 19 of the majority opinion:
    c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background
    It appears to me that this would negate the ban, at least on open carry, in National Parks and Forests.

    Thoughts?

  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    340

    Post imported post

    Scalia had a lot of self-contradicting points. I read all 64 pages.
    It appeared he wanted to say the right thing, but was restrained by something to not "let loose the stops." The political, social and other fall-out if he had nixed the 1934 ban (just picking one) outright etc would have turned this country on its head figuratively with lawsuits, people getting out of prison etc. It just would damage the "status quo" too much for him to give an 'honest,' summary. His reasoning for upholding the 'ban' on machineguns was completely a circular argument... saying that they're illegal because they are "not in common use"... wait a second, maybe they're not common because they're illegal!

    Essentially I agree with you about the National Parks, but later in his ruling he said that "sensitive places" like schools and government buildings etc could have a legit/legal ban on firearms etc. So, in one place he says something that seems to support "bear and carry" anywhere, and other places he contradicts or modifies what he says.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    IdahoCorsair wrote:
    Scalia had a lot of self-contradicting points. I read all 64 pages.
    It appeared he wanted to say the right thing, but was restrained by something to not "let loose the stops." The political, social and other fall-out if he had nixed the 1934 ban (just picking one) outright etc would have turned this country on its head figuratively with lawsuits, people getting out of prison etc. It just would damage the "status quo" too much for him to give an 'honest,' summary. His reasoning for upholding the 'ban' on machineguns was completely a circular argument... saying that they're illegal because they are "not in common use"... wait a second, maybe they're not common because they're illegal!

    Essentially I agree with you about the National Parks, but later in his ruling he said that "sensitive places" like schools and government buildings etc could have a legit/legal ban on firearms etc. So, in one place he says something that seems to support "bear and carry" anywhere, and other places he contradicts or modifies what he says.
    Well, remember, we need more good Republican judges appointed by McCain to make similarly faux-Constitutional decisions...

    ETA:

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    I think he made the best argument he could keeping Kennedy on board for a 5-4 in our favor rather than a 5-4 against which could have been devastating for generations if not our downfall. I don't think the majority decision had anything to do with political party.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    462

    Post imported post

    my interpretation is that carry of some form is allowed except for restricted places (federal buildings and schools for example)... meaning that there has to be some allowance for "bearing arms"... for example a state may ban open carry, but must make concealed carry a shall issue... conversely, a state may prohibit CCW completely but then would have to allow open carry... those details will have to be hashed out in court over the next decade

    as for how restrictions can be placed on public places, that will have to be hashed out in some lower court rulings...

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    143

    Post imported post

    bobernet wrote:
    From page 19 of the majority opinion:
    c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background
    It appears to me that this would negate the ban, at least on open carry, in National Parks and Forests.

    Thoughts?
    I find it funny that the court ruled you have a "right to keep and bear arms" and that it is an "individual right" So DC. has to issue Heller a LICENSE! The fact that he is excepting a LICENSE, or PERMIT forfeits his right alone. The court did very little, only to affirm we have the right to keep/own and bear/carry arms in our homes. Now when your 150 miles awayfrom home in a national park? The government can still argue you do not have the 2nd to protect you. Because it is "reasonable". There are so many legal arguments that can be made againstOC "bearing arms" and the fact you must receive a licence to exercise a "right" is legalhogwash! They can say "you can own a firearmBUT, you must take this test or receive this training, have your eyes checked andblah, blah and blah"...Also think of all the new laws that will become felonies. They can still legestlate you right away by making you a felon

  7. #7
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    IdahoCorsair wrote:
    Scalia had a lot of self-contradicting points. I read all 64 pages.
    It appeared he wanted to say the right thing, but was restrained by something to not "let loose the stops." The political, social and other fall-out if he had nixed the 1934 ban (just picking one) outright etc would have turned this country on its head figuratively with lawsuits, people getting out of prison etc. It just would damage the "status quo" too much for him to give an 'honest,' summary. His reasoning for upholding the 'ban' on machineguns was completely a circular argument... saying that they're illegal because they are "not in common use"... wait a second, maybe they're not common because they're illegal!

    Essentially I agree with you about the National Parks, but later in his ruling he said that "sensitive places" like schools and government buildings etc could have a legit/legal ban on firearms etc. So, in one place he says something that seems to support "bear and carry" anywhere, and other places he contradicts or modifies what he says.
    Well, remember, we need more good Republican judges appointed by McCain to make similarly faux-Constitutional decisions...

    ETA:
    What we really need are good libertarian judges and strict constitutionalistson the Supreme Court. I think the National Parks ban is unconstitutional.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •