Article credits "open carry movement" with Helping High Court find its way in Hell

imported post

Note foreign students' recognition of importance of gun rights.

--

http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/69020




Photo by Christine ArmbrusterBYU alumnus Ken Collins shoots a Glock 24 at Rangemasters in Springville

The June 26 Supreme Court decision to rule in favor of an individual's right to own and carry a handgun has brought attention to firearm activist groups and students. The decision came after the Supreme Court ruled a Washington, D.C. handgun ban to be unconstitutional.

[align=left]The Supreme Court decision doesn't extend unlimited rights to gun owners. Some limitations apply such as those laid out in the BYU honor code's firearms policy. According to the BYU policy and procedures handbook, the use or possession of any firearm, explosives, knives or other dangerous weapons is prohibited on or near campus. There are a few exceptions such as ROTC students and members of the BYUSA shooting club.
"For self defense I think it's a good idea," said Subarna Maharjun a junior from Nepal majoring in microbiology. "[However], in Utah, especially in Provo, the crime rates are so low I don't feel the need to have a gun." [/align]
[align=left]"I think everyone has the right to have a gun if they want it," said Nicole Bell a senior majoring in Latin American studies. "As a U.S. citizen you have the right to defend yourself."
People's right to defend themselves isn't the only reason students are glad the Supreme Court ruling went the way it did.
"Those who want guns for the wrong reasons are going to get them whether it's illegal or not," Bell said. "People are still going to be doing what they do."
Some students have come from places where the right to bare arms wasn't an unalienable right. [/align]
[align=left]"We weren't allowed to use guns in Nepal," said Ramesh Tiwari a junior majoring in biology. "But my father is a policeman so I've used guns a little."
Governmental control of firearms has caused problems in the past.
"In the case of Pakistan, if the people had guns, the military wouldn't have been able to take over," Tiwari said. "If the government has guns and the public doesn't, it is kind of unfair. If the public has guns, the government can't exercise full power over the people." [/align]
[align=left]Several groups participated in lobbying for the decision including the National Rifle Association and the open carry movement.
Open carry means to carry a gun in a holster where it can be seen and the practice has seen a rise since the movement started in 2004. The movement operates on the motto "a right unexercised is a right lost." [/align]
[align=left]As well as being responsible for much of the lobbying done during this case, the NRA provides services for people interested in learning about gun operations and safety.
"There is very little fire arm training that you would want that you can't source through the NRA," said Ben Shepard, an NRA certified instructor. "You have to interpret the amendment the way it was interpreted back then - To keep, carry, hold." [/align]
[align=left]Some of the classes available include security force training for police officers and the Eddy Eagle gun safety program for kids. Eddy Eagle is a mascot used to promote gun safety among kids comparable to McGruff the crime dog.
The decision comes as a relief to members of the NRA who hope it will make a difference in Utah. "I completely agree with it," Shepard said. "They finally put into modern words what's been there since the 1700s. It will make our legislature a little more leery to pass anything."[/align]

imported post

We all celebrated the June 26th ruling, but most people have failed to see a very important fact.

4 out of the 9 justices voted AGAINST the right to bear arms. Which states something very clear - THEY DON'T CARE WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS!!

If the ruling had gone their way, we would all be in a very serious world of hurt. Our founding fathers never ment for the constitution to be "on-going and ever changing". There was purpose and meaning behind the original ratification of this document. This has been lost and severley comprimised due tocourt rulings over the last 50+ years.Their decisions are based on personal politics and beliefs, NOT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS!!

imported post

I agree with the supreme court's ruling and I am glad what that means for 2nd amendment rights but the truth is no one knows the exact thoughts of the founding fathers when they wrote the Bill of Rights. It was not in the original constitution and was added after as a compromise to appease both the federalists and anti-federalists. No one knows their original intentions nor can anyone even imagine how it would apply to modern life.

Unlike many countries the US uses common law instead of civil law. Civil law is where every single law is written out plainly and that is how it is, no interpretation at all. Common law uses precedent and interpretation of the law so the same law can mean different things at different times. This is how segregation was legal under the same constitution. One of the good things about common law is that the interpretation of the laws can change as society changes and can cover things that the founding father's never could have even imagined.

The whole point of the supreme court is to interpret the law and decide what is and isn't constitutional which is what they did here. They all care what the constitution says but they have a different opinion of what it means. I highly doubt anyone on the supreme court honestly doesn't care about the constitution or what it says. I do however strongly disagree with some of their interpretations of that constitution.

Take the Bible for example. There are thousands of different religions that use the same bible but have huge differences in the way they interpret it. It doesn't mean that they don't care about it. They just think it says something different. (This isn't to start a religious discussion just a comparison of people with different interpretations of the same thing)

Art or other literature is another example. People always try to assume what the artist or writer meant and everyone has their own different opinion.

Yes they based their decision on their own personal politics and their own beliefs but they also based it on what the constitution says to them which is a huge part of their personal politics and beliefs. The very act of interpreting what something says uses your own personal beliefs and bias.

Abortion or Gay Marriage are huge examples of something people base on their personal politics and beliefs and thus they read the constitution very differently in regards to those things. Some think the constitution allows it, some people don't think it does. It is all up to interpretation.

Common law has it's pros and cons but the whole heart of it is interpretation.

Please do not start this as a discussion on religion, gay marriage, or abortion. These are just examples of constitutional interpretation. Lets keep this discussion about gun law and the current supreme court ruling.

imported post

goosemama wrote:

We all celebrated the June 26th ruling, but most people have failed to see a very important fact.

4 out of the 9 justices voted AGAINST the right to bear arms. Which states something very clear - THEY DON'T CARE WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS!!

If the ruling had gone their way, we would all be in a very serious world of hurt. Our founding fathers never ment for the constitution to be "on-going and ever changing". There was purpose and meaning behind the original ratification of this document. This has been lost and severley comprimised due tocourt rulings over the last 50+ years.Their decisions are based on personal politics and beliefs, NOT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS!!

Click to expand...

AMEN Goosemama:exclaim:

Kevin

imported post

Cykaos wrote:

I agree with the supreme court's ruling and I am glad what that means for 2nd amendment rights but the truth is no one knows the exact thoughts of the founding fathers when they wrote the Bill of Rights. It was not in the original constitution and was added after as a compromise to appease both the federalists and anti-federalists. No one knows their original intentions nor can anyone even imagine how it would apply to modern life.

Unlike many countries the US uses common law instead of civil law. Civil law is where every single law is written out plainly and that is how it is, no interpretation at all. Common law uses precedent and interpretation of the law so the same law can mean different things at different times. This is how segregation was legal under the same constitution. One of the good things about common law is that the interpretation of the laws can change as society changes and can cover things that the founding father's never could have even imagined.

The whole point of the supreme court is to interpret the law and decide what is and isn't constitutional which is what they did here. They all care what the constitution says but they have a different opinion of what it means. I highly doubt anyone on the supreme court honestly doesn't care about the constitution or what it says. I do however strongly disagree with some of their interpretations of that constitution.

Take the Bible for example. There are thousands of different religions that use the same bible but have huge differences in the way they interpret it. It doesn't mean that they don't care about it. They just think it says something different. (This isn't to start a religious discussion just a comparison of people with different interpretations of the same thing)

Art or other literature is another example. People always try to assume what the artist or writer meant and everyone has their own different opinion.

Yes they based their decision on their own personal politics and their own beliefs but they also based it on what the constitution says to them which is a huge part of their personal politics and beliefs. The very act of interpreting what something says uses your own personal beliefs and bias.

Abortion or Gay Marriage are huge examples of something people base on their personal politics and beliefs and thus they read the constitution very differently in regards to those things. Some think the constitution allows it, some people don't think it does. It is all up to interpretation.

Common law has it's pros and cons but the whole heart of it is interpretation.

Please do not start this as a discussion on religion, gay marriage, or abortion. These are just examples of constitutional interpretation. Lets keep this discussion about gun law and the current supreme court ruling.

Click to expand...

Those are some really good points.

imported post

Cykaos wrote:

I agree with the supreme court's ruling and I am glad what that means for 2nd amendment rights but the truth is no one knows the exact thoughts of the founding fathers when they wrote the Bill of Rights. It was not in the original constitution and was added after as a compromise to appease both the federalists and anti-federalists. No one knows their original intentions nor can anyone even imagine how it would apply to modern life.

Unlike many countries the US uses common law instead of civil law. Civil law is where every single law is written out plainly and that is how it is, no interpretation at all. Common law uses precedent and interpretation of the law so the same law can mean different things at different times. This is how segregation was legal under the same constitution. One of the good things about common law is that the interpretation of the laws can change as society changes and can cover things that the founding father's never could have even imagined.

The whole point of the supreme court is to interpret the law and decide what is and isn't constitutional which is what they did here. They all care what the constitution says but they have a different opinion of what it means. I highly doubt anyone on the supreme court honestly doesn't care about the constitution or what it says. I do however strongly disagree with some of their interpretations of that constitution.

Take the Bible for example. There are thousands of different religions that use the same bible but have huge differences in the way they interpret it. It doesn't mean that they don't care about it. They just think it says something different. (This isn't to start a religious discussion just a comparison of people with different interpretations of the same thing)

Art or other literature is another example. People always try to assume what the artist or writer meant and everyone has their own different opinion.

Yes they based their decision on their own personal politics and their own beliefs but they also based it on what the constitution says to them which is a huge part of their personal politics and beliefs. The very act of interpreting what something says uses your own personal beliefs and bias.

Abortion or Gay Marriage are huge examples of something people base on their personal politics and beliefs and thus they read the constitution very differently in regards to those things. Some think the constitution allows it, some people don't think it does. It is all up to interpretation.

Common law has it's pros and cons but the whole heart of it is interpretation.

Please do not start this as a discussion on religion, gay marriage, or abortion. These are just examples of constitutional interpretation. Lets keep this discussion about gun law and the current supreme court ruling.

Click to expand...

Yes, they are some good points, but think about this... If only one justice had ruled the other way, then what would the 2nd amendment mean? It would mean practically nothing, because with or without it, of COURSE the govt is going to have the guns. So OBVIOUSLY in modern times (ie, modern interpretation) it can't mean that the govt has the right to be armed... that's ridiculous. It's like saying "we've got this document (the constitution) to protect the rights of the people.. and oh, we have one amendment that protects the right of the government to have guns" --- RIIGHT. It's common knowledge (at least in forums like these) that the governemnt is to protect the rights of the people, not the other way around. So, if the decision had come down that individuals don't have the right to have guns, then what in the world would the 2nd amendment be worth? It would have been worth nothing! It would have been like the 2nd amendment had been like it had been repealed. So, my argument goes if we're going to have a 2nd amendment, it MUST be to protect the individual right to bear arms, because if it didn't, there would be no point in having it because the government doesn't need the right to have guns --- they're going to have them anyway.

imported post

The supreme court case was to interpret the meaning of a well regulated militia and whether or not that had anything to do with the right to bear arms. The wording of the amendment isn't very clear and thus leaves interpretation.

It isn't about the 2nd amendment protecting the government because of course nothing in the constitution is for government rights like you say. It is about exactly what rights do people have when it comes to arms, whether or not the the government can regulate those arms, and how they can regulate those arms.

Does the 2nd amendment say anyone has the right to bear arms no matter what? What is all the stuff about the well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state? What does regulated mean in well regulated militia? There are so many ways to interpret the 2nd amendment and of course everyone thinks that their interpretation is the right one.

Reading the dissenting views in the supreme court case is interesting if for nothing more to see the other side and what their rationalization is for banning guns but still following the second amendment.

Again I think the majority here ruled the right way but the 2nd amendment isn't as clear as we would all like it to be and if they did rule to allow DC to ban guns it isn't because they don't believe in or follow the constitution. It is jut that they think it means something different than you do. Who is right and who is wrong? Well the supreme court in the end is who gets to decide what the constitution says and of course at a later time they might change their mind and reverse their decision. It wouldn't be the first time.

imported post

goosemama wrote:

We all celebrated the June 26th ruling, but most people have failed to see a very important fact.

4 out of the 9 justices voted AGAINST the right to bear arms. Which states something very clear - THEY DON'T CARE WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS!!

If the ruling had gone their way, we would all be in a very serious world of hurt. Our founding fathers never ment for the constitution to be "on-going and ever changing". There was purpose and meaning behind the original ratification of this document. This has been lost and severley comprimised due tocourt rulings over the last 50+ years.Their decisions are based on personal politics and beliefs, NOT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS!!

Click to expand...

Yup. This is the kind of case that should have gone 9-0 in our favor. A 5-4 split should not be expected until one is talking about EXACTLY which limits on the individual RKBA are allowable under the constitution.

I mean, think about a 1st amendment case. Ask the question of whether the 1st amd protects an individual right to publish or read newspapers and you'd get a 9-0 decision in favor of the individual. Now, start probing into where free speech ends and libel, slander, inciting a riot, or treasonously betraying national security begins and we might legitimately see honest men of sound understanding and good conscience disagree in a 5-4 or 4-5 fashion.

Even on questions like licensing and registration of guns (NOT contested in this case EXCEPT the de facto ban by the city refusing to issue ANY licenses) I could accept a 5-4 split as honest legal opinion even though y'all know exactly where I would come down on that question (shall not infringe does NOT permit registration or licensing requirements IMO). But on the fundamental question of an individual right to own a hand gun and keep it in a usable condition within the confines of one's own home? I just don't see any room for dissent there by anyone with an ounce of honesty.

And so yes, it is clear that 4 justices don't give a rip what is written in the constitution. They have become a super-legislature. Congress isn't the only body in need of some term limits.

Charles