• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

National Park carry defacto side-effect of Heller?

B

bobernet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
333
Location
Henderson, Nevada, USA
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
Click to expand...
It appears to me that this would negate the ban, at least on open carry, in National Parks and Forests.

Thoughts?
 
I

IdahoCorsair

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
340
Location
, ,
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! :cuss:

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.
 
I

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
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! :cuss:

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.
Click to expand...
Well, remember, we need more good Republican judges appointed by McCain to make similarly faux-Constitutional decisions...

ETA: :banghead:
 
deepdiver

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
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.
 
M

mekender

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
462
Location
, ,
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...
 
M

murphy2

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
143
Location
, ,
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
Click to expand...
It appears to me that this would negate the ban, at least on open carry, in National Parks and Forests.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
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
 
Thundar

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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! :cuss:

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.
Click to expand...
Well, remember, we need more good Republican judges appointed by McCain to make similarly faux-Constitutional decisions...

ETA: :banghead:
Click to expand...
What we really need are good libertarian judges and strict constitutionalistson the Supreme Court. I think the National Parks ban is unconstitutional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top