• 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.

Incorporation 101: The Second Amendment is no good here

John Pierce

John Pierce

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
1,777
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
 
Z

zig-zag

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2008
Messages
44
Location
, ,
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
 
John Pierce

John Pierce

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
1,777
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 .... :monkey

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
Click to expand...
 
Flintlock

Flintlock

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
1,224
Location
Alaska, USA
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
 
John Pierce

John Pierce

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
1,777
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
Click to expand...
 
Brass Magnet

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 
John Pierce

John Pierce

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
1,777
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.
Click to expand...
 
TFred

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
J

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
So this will have no bearing then on the CCW issues in Wisconsin or Illinois? Just ownership of fire arms?
 
Flintlock

Flintlock

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
1,224
Location
Alaska, USA
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.
Click to expand...


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.



[align=center]10 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA [font="Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook"][font="Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook"]v. [/font][/font]HELLER Opinion of the Court [/align]
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 [font="Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook"][font="Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook"]Muscarello [/font][/font]v. [font="Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook"][font="Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook"]United States[/font][/font], 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 "urely a most familiar meaning is,as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘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.’" [font="Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook"][font="Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook"]Id.[/font][/font], at 143 (dissenting opinion)

We think that JUSTICE 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.
 
N

Notso

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
432
Location
Laveen, Arizona, USA
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
cato

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
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!" :D
 
John Pierce

John Pierce

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
1,777
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
 
T

turbojohn41

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
67
Location
Oak Creek
imported post

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

[font=Palatino,Palatino][font=Palatino,Palatino]
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."
[/font][/font]
 
Interceptor_Knight

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

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

[font=Palatino,Palatino][font=Palatino,Palatino]
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."
[/font][/font]
Click to expand...
This is actually better language than the CONUS for us today.
 
S

SlackwareRobert

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
1,338
Location
Alabama, ,
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.:cry: 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.
 
H

Hillmann

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
271
Location
Cameron, Wisconsin, USA
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top