Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 70

Thread: Incorporation 101: The Second Amendment is no good here

  1. #1
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735

    Post imported post

    Even as you are reading this, the Second Amendment offers you no protection whatsoever from state gun laws! But today, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of McDonald v. Chicago and we may soon finally see the Second Amendment take its rightful place as a protection for ALL Americans!

    (Excerpt) Read more at http://www.opencarry.org/john/incorporation.html

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Riverside County, California, USA
    Posts
    353

    Post imported post


  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    44

    Post imported post

    As hopeful as i am about this i still don't think that the Supreme Court will over turn anything and then we will be in big trouble, the gun grabbers will be partying in the streets

  4. #4
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735

    Post imported post

    We already have the Heller decision which will stand to prevent the worst of the federal atrocities and the states are currently not subject to the Second Amendment anyway.

    If the Court rules against incorporation, we stay exactly where we are.

    But if we win ....

    zig-zag wrote:
    As hopeful as i am about this i still don't think that the Supreme Court will over turn anything and then we will be in big trouble, the gun grabbers will be partying in the streets

  5. #5
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    This truly should come out in our favor. Either there is a right to bear arms for individual citizens in this country (regardless of location)or there isn't. If it doesn't pan out for us, I don't see how the states wouldn't be able to pass legislation to infringe upon our religious freedoms and the right to peaceably assemble, etc.

    The fall-back is that there are 43 states with 2nd amendment style provisions in their own constitutions.

    http://hematite.com/dragon/StateRights.html
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  6. #6
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735

    Post imported post

    Bingo.

    Flintlock wrote:
    This truly should come out in our favor. Either there is a right to bear arms for individual citizens in this country (regardless of location)or there isn't. If it doesn't pan out for us, I don't see how the states wouldn't be able to pass legislation to infringe upon our religious freedoms and the right to peaceably assemble, etc.

    The fall-back is that there are 43 states with 2nd amendment style provisions in their own constitutions.

    http://hematite.com/dragon/StateRights.html

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    I've asked this before and don't remember getting an answer:

    If a bill like national carry reciprocity were to come up again after incorporation can the "states rights" argument that mostly tanked it last time be rendered moot? If not moot, substantially weakened?

    I would think so. I'm all for less federal government intervention in just about all casesbut it sure would be nice to carry anywhere we wanted without worrying about all the legal crap we currently have to worry about.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  8. #8
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735

    Post imported post

    No. Once incorporated, the Second Amendment will be a "floor" below which the states may not go in their use of the police power. However, the only power this will grant to the federal government is the power to insure that states do not go below this floor via the courts. It will give NO additional power to congress.

    The states will still retain sole control over legislating concealed carry because Scalia made it perfectly clear in footnote 23 of the Heller decision that open carry is the right protected by the Second Amendment and concealed carry may be regulated or banned as the states see fit.


    Brass Magnet wrote:
    I've asked this before and don't remember getting an answer:

    If a bill like national carry reciprocity were to come up again after incorporation can the "states rights" argument that mostly tanked it last time be rendered moot? If not moot, substantially weakened?

    I would think so. I'm all for less federal government intervention in just about all casesbut it sure would be nice to carry anywhere we wanted without worrying about all the legal crap we currently have to worry about.

  9. #9
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    jpierce wrote:
    No. Once incorporated, the Second Amendment will be a "floor" below which the states may not go in their use of the police power. However, the only power this will grant to the federal government is the power to insure that states do not go below this floor via the courts. It will give NO additional power to congress.

    The states will still retain sole control over legislating concealed carry because Scalia made it perfectly clear in footnote 23 of the Heller decision that open carry is the right protected by the Second Amendment and concealed carry may be regulated or banned as the states see fit.
    Hi John,

    Can you point me to Footnote 23? I've looked through the full text of the decision found here, and I don't see what it is you are referring to.

    Thanks,

    TFred


  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    jpierce wrote:
    No. Once incorporated, the Second Amendment will be a "floor" below which the states may not go in their use of the police power. However, the only power this will grant to the federal government is the power to insure that states do not go below this floor via the courts. It will give NO additional power to congress.

    The states will still retain sole control over legislating concealed carry because Scalia made it perfectly clear in footnote 23 of the Heller decision that open carry is the right protected by the Second Amendment and concealed carry may be regulated or banned as the states see fit.


    Brass Magnet wrote:
    I've asked this before and don't remember getting an answer:

    If a bill like national carry reciprocity were to come up again after incorporation can the "states rights" argument that mostly tanked it last time be rendered moot? If not moot, substantially weakened?

    I would think so. I'm all for less federal government intervention in just about all casesbut it sure would be nice to carry anywhere we wanted without worrying about all the legal crap we currently have to worry about.
    So this will have no bearing then on the CCW issues in Wisconsin or Illinois? Just ownership of fire arms?

  11. #11
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    jpierce wrote:
    The states will still retain sole control over legislating concealed carry because Scalia made it perfectly clear in footnote 23 of the Heller decision that open carry is the right protected by the Second Amendment and concealed carry may be regulated or banned as the states see fit.


    I cannot find in the decision where it states that either, but I was able to find what the court's definition of Bear armsmeans, with the majority agreeing with the dissenting opinion -except for the purpose of bearingpart... It seems to me to define bearing as either being openly or concealed (in the pocket). Just being carried.



    10 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    v. HELLER Opinion of the Court

    At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to"carry." See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford).When used with "arms," however, the term has a meaningthat refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In
    Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of "carries a firearm" in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that "[s]urely a most familiar meaning is,as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’" Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion)

    We think that J
    USTICE GINSBURG accurately captured thenatural meaning of "bear arms." Although the phraseimplies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of "offensive or defensive action," it in no way connotesparticipation in a structured military organization.


    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Laveen, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    432

    Post imported post

    jpierce wrote:
    No. Once incorporated, the Second Amendment will be a "floor" below which the states may not go in their use of the police power. However, the only power this will grant to the federal government is the power to insure that states do not go below this floor via the courts. It will give NO additional power to congress.

    The states will still retain sole control over legislating concealed carry because Scalia made it perfectly clear in footnote 23 of the Heller decision that open carry is the right protected by the Second Amendment and concealed carry may be regulated or banned as the states see fit.

    So I assume you're saying open carry will be part of that floor and thus should be legal everywhere, but not necessarily unlicensed open carry?

  13. #13
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Don't say California never did anything for you; Alan Gurais our native son! I heard Alan say at the Nordyke hearing lunch, "Go Dodgers!"

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    The man is a friggin badass.

    Kick ass and take names, Gura!

  15. #15
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735

    Post imported post

    I am honestly not sure how the court will define that term, nor is it at question here. It will be for future cases to define the boundaries of "bear arms" once we have secured incorporation.



    Notso wrote:
    jpierce wrote:
    No. Once incorporated, the Second Amendment will be a "floor" below which the states may not go in their use of the police power. However, the only power this will grant to the federal government is the power to insure that states do not go below this floor via the courts. It will give NO additional power to congress.

    The states will still retain sole control over legislating concealed carry because Scalia made it perfectly clear in footnote 23 of the Heller decision that open carry is the right protected by the Second Amendment and concealed carry may be regulated or banned as the states see fit.

    So I assume you're saying open carry will be part of that floor and thus should be legal everywhere, but not necessarily unlicensed open carry?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oak Creek
    Posts
    66

    Post imported post

    Its 44 states Wisconsin has it now also. We voted it in11 years ago.


    In November 1998, Wisconsin voters ratified an amendment to the state constitution which states: "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation, or any other lawful purpose."

  17. #17
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    So this will have no bearing then on the CCW issues in Wisconsin or Illinois? Just ownership of fire arms?
    That is correct...

  18. #18
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    turbojohn41 wrote:
    Its 44 states Wisconsin has it now also. We voted it in11 years ago.


    In November 1998, Wisconsin voters ratified an amendment to the state constitution which states: "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation, or any other lawful purpose."
    This is actually better language than the CONUS for us today.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    Would love federal incorporation, but will settle for a ruling that State Constitutions
    are incorporated on those states.
    Would look like the women in trojan gel commercial if they actually uphold that you
    must have arms to hold government tyrants in check.

    Holding my breath and dropping my shorts in anticipation of the newest
    radical on the courts ruling. Will Ginsburg be around for the case?
    Looks suspicious when a commie is put in as second female, and the healthy
    female keels over sick weeks after getting a clean bill of health.


  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Cameron, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    271

    Post imported post

    The sad thing is, it is the government that we want to keep in check that gets to determine if we can have the guns that we need to keep them in check.

    Anyone else see the problem with that?

  21. #21
    Regular Member Smurfologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield by way of Chicago, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    I totally understand that people need to be able to protect themselves in their home. But, the chaos (in Chicago) is taking place on the streets of Chicago. I know this from first hand experience and you see it all over the news everyday. That kid that got killed that went to Fenger High School.........I grew up a half a block away from that school; I took Driver's Education at that school........You can be minding your own business; the next thing you are doing is dodging bullets. It happens all the time (and, believe me, this is no exaggeration).

    If the road thatwe (us gun rights advocates)havebeen travelling onhere is the one thatwill ultimately lead us to be able to protect ourselves wherever we may be (home, at the mall, on the CTA, at the bus stop, in your car, etc), then I will be patient and let the legal system work all of the gun laws and the United States Constitution out!! Just my two cents. Keep the faith!!

    The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1787!!:X
    The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1791!!

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    204

    Post imported post

    Funny things is, like someone else mentioned, the US Congress cannot take away your gun, the President of the US cannot take away your gun, but the mayor and the city council can.



  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    CA_fr_KS wrote:
    Funny things is, like someone else mentioned, the US Congress cannot take away your gun, the President of the US cannot take away your gun, but the mayor and the city council can.

    They also can be arrested for treason... the war against law abiding citizens on behalf of criminals needs to end. We need to fight back with their own cherished tactics.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Smurfologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield by way of Chicago, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    How does the term "Home Rule" apply in all of this?

    The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1787!!:X

    The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1791!!

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    8

    Post imported post

    I always wonder, will technology get to a point where firearms are no longer the preferred weapon of self-defense?

    The 2nd Amendment won't even apply, will it?

    You know, lasers and plasma weapons, and my favorite (but a myth), a gun that shoots the "Brown Note".

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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