Circuit Court of Appeals Decisons Post McDonald/Chicago

imported post

"shall not be infringed" isn't cut and dry either. I always try to ask people in the gun community to keep an open mind to things because understanding others arguments can make you a better technical debater.

There is a real argument that 2A would require the government to allow citizens to bear arms, but that it wouldn't prevent the government from limiting what type of weapons one could carry based on public safety and that the definition of "bear arms" is very limited, especially in light of what was available when the Constitution was written.

For example, I have no doubt that the framers of the US Constitution meant Rifles, since that was the common carry at the time. I am pretty sure they would agree, if they were alive, handguns now fit the same definition.

However, I would believe that everyone in this forum would agree that there must be a line of what type of arms is allowed? Does anyone here think that everyone should have access to build Nukes? Obviously that is a ridiculous statement, but who decides what the line it? Is it Machine Guns? Grenade Launchers?

I think the main issue after McDonald will be who draws the line, who decides what line can be drawn etc. I am 100% sure that home carry will be made legal in every jurisdiction, but we will have issues with interstate carry (ie, I live in Arizona, visiting California and my XDM 9m allows too many rounds).

One thing I hope, is that the OpenCarry movement members can educate themselves about the law, the creation of laws and the method of jurisprudence. It's easy to say "these are our rights" but the way our system works in this country is very, very slow -- its one of the great things about the Constitution is that it normally makes it hard to make significant changes. Unfortunately twice in the last 100 years we allowed Presidents to overstep the Bounds and make huge changes: - FDR during the depression, Bush after 9/11 and if we are not careful, Obama will use those powers and make even bigger changes without the people's approval.

Best,
Pace

imported post

Pace wrote:

For example, I have no doubt that the framers of the US Constitution meant Rifles, since that was the common carry at the time. I am pretty sure they would agree, if they were alive, handguns now fit the same definition.

However, I would believe that everyone in this forum would agree that there must be a line of what type of arms is allowed? Does anyone here think that everyone should have access to build Nukes? Obviously that is a ridiculous statement, but who decides what the line it? Is it Machine Guns? Grenade Launchers?

Click to expand...

You obviously need to actually read what the founders said about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The main purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the people would always be better armed than the government.

You are wrong that everyone" one the forum would agree that there must be a line". There are plenty of us who understand the real purpose of the Second Amendment and are willing to defend our freedom rather than roll over and play dead.

imported post

rpyne wrote:

You are wrong that everyone" one the forum would agree that there must be a line". There are plenty of us who understand the real purpose of the Second Amendment and are willing to defend our freedom rather than roll over and play dead.

Click to expand...

Really? So you think we should have the ability to have nukes?

There is a line in my opinion as well, and I'm not sure what that line should be. I find myself being content with having access to purchase the same equipment that an infantry soldier can purchase. However, we are nowhere near having that. The day I can buy frag grenades is the day I'll be happy.

imported post

As my friend said, "so anyone should be able to buy nukes?"

"The main purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the people would always be better armed than the government."

According this thought, then everyone should have access to nukes, strategic missiles, armored tanks, battle ships, F-16's etc.

I hate to burst your bubble here, but Citizens will never be better armed than the government, and I doubt that you want that. I couldn't imagine how we'd defeat Nazi Germany if the government hadn't had better technology (even then) than the average person.

Ideas are great, and the freedom philosophy serves a purpose, but lets be real here. Nobody wants terrorists to get rocket launchers, nukes, etc in their hands.


rpyne wrote:

Pace wrote:

For example, I have no doubt that the framers of the US Constitution meant Rifles, since that was the common carry at the time. I am pretty sure they would agree, if they were alive, handguns now fit the same definition.

However, I would believe that everyone in this forum would agree that there must be a line of what type of arms is allowed? Does anyone here think that everyone should have access to build Nukes? Obviously that is a ridiculous statement, but who decides what the line it? Is it Machine Guns? Grenade Launchers?

Click to expand...

You obviously need to actually read what the founders said about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The main purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the people would always be better armed than the government.

You are wrong that everyone" one the forum would agree that there must be a line". There are plenty of us who understand the real purpose of the Second Amendment and are willing to defend our freedom rather than roll over and play dead.

Click to expand...

imported post

Pace argues "Shall Not Be Infringed" still means that there must be a "line" drawn with regards to what "arms" cannot be infringed upon. While the idea of "Shall Not Be Infringed" being open to interpretation is arguable, Pace is most likely correct that the U.S. Supreme Court will, eventually, draw a line.

I would refer back to the founders' intent for the 2A. Defense of individual liberties (Living Free). Defense for self-protection and Defense against a tyrannical government or an invading nation. Whether by criminal, tyrant, or enemy, all three wish take liberty/possessions from you by force.

Therefore, any and all weapons necessary to fight those battles (I'll suggest ON HOME SOIL - In the U.S.A) should be Constitutional. Since certain weapons (nukes, battleships, etc) would probably do more harm to the cause (Living Free on U.S. soil) than good, I'll guess the Supremes would definitely decide to not allow citizens to have the kinds of weapons that are more geared toward deterring international aggression or weapons for the oceans (navigable rivers/lakes is different argument, however).

I'm pretty much of the mind that most weapons/systems ARE allowed and the government should have to make the case for the few items that are not. I'd rather that the default list be ALL are allowed, until the Supreme Court says no to a very short list.

To do it the other way puts the burden on the Citizens to fight through the courts for every item added to a list of what is allowed. This is exactly why the Founders didn't want to open this can of worms when the carefully wrote "Shall Not Be Infringed".

Pace is absolutely correct that we must begin thinking more about this "line" issue. With the 2A likely to be incorporated and governments trying to figure out how to deal with it, we need to examine and refine our arguments so that we can achieve maximum effectiveness in securing the widest range of ARMS we can choose to "keep & bear".

imported post

The discussion of anything beyond open carry of handguns is not important to this board. I think we need to close this topic and get back to the topic of the board.

Despite what we want, there will always be limits to what firearms we can possess, and the courts will always allow jurisdictions to limit the type of firearms, until there is national laws passed that give uniform firearm restrictions.

I believe the SCOTUS case will require jurisdictions to allow citizens to arm themselves and then we will have a fight on the following issues:

1) Pistol type restrictions (ie, magazine size)
2) Where you can carry (in home vs. outside)
3) How you can carry
4) Permit requirements.

Expect another 10-20 years before these are changed.

imported post

Pace wrote:

The discussion of anything beyond open carry of handguns is not important to this board. I think we need to close this topic and get back to the topic of the board.

Click to expand...

Open carry of firearms.

1) Pistol type restrictions (ie, magazine size)
2) Where you can carry (in home vs. outside)
3) How you can carry
4) Permit requirements.

Expect another 10-20 years before these are changed.

Click to expand...

Pessimist. I'm hoping that these issues can be fought all at once, in as many jurisdictions as is advantageous.

There's not even a question on #2. Every state allows some form of carry, even if it is in the licensed form of the "right."

For me, #4 is totally insane. Having a permit to allow a person to practice a right, makes it not a right.

I can see the courts forcing states to allow at least one form of carry, and I see the courts saying that the states cannot require people to need a license to carry. Probably open carry legal everywhere, concealed allowed with a permit? I'd much rather have Vermont style carry everywhere.

Number one is a no brainer. All restrictions will be repealed on the size of magazines. The alternative is that courts would allow restrictions as long as the firearm is usable, which would mean single-shot everything. But that would require a complete moron to be on the bench.

My time frame for these issues to be resolved is five years.

imported post

Actually no, this site and the board is about OpenCarry of Pistols on your person, in a scabbard.

Your response is answering what you would like, not what will most likely happen.

The key here is that SCOTUS needs to define

KEEP: POSSESS, OWN.
&
BEAR: CARRY & USE

This is going to be the most important. All 50 States to some degree allow KEEP of most firearms. A lot do not allow BEAR.

As mentioned, even if they rule that you can KEEP AND BEAR, there will be issues with what you can own, how you can wear the gun (ie, unloaded open carry).

imported post

Pace wrote:

Actually no, this site and the board is about OpenCarry of Pistols on your person, in a scabbard.

Click to expand...

You're right.

Your response is answering what you would like, not what will most likely happen.

Click to expand...

You're right that I'm answering what I hope will happen. I also don't think my hopes and what will happen are very different.

All 50 States to some degree allow KEEP of most firearms. A lot do not allow BEAR.

Click to expand...

I thought there was just a single state that didn't allow bearing a firearm in any manner, and that is Illinois.

imported post

Hawaii too.

imported post

Why no ones remember Gideon v. Wainwright?

imported post

Wc wrote:

Why no ones remember Gideon v. Wainwright?

Click to expand...

I feel that all of these cases are paying great heed to the stare decisis.

Are you talking about the Mcdonald case or are you drawing a parallel to the incorporation issue with the protections granted by Gid. v. Wainwright?

How do you mean?

imported post

heliopolissolutions wrote:

Wc wrote:

Why no ones remember Gideon v. Wainwright?

Click to expand...

I feel that all of these cases are paying great heed to the stare decisis.

Are you talking about the Mcdonald case or are you drawing a parallel to the incorporation issue with the protections granted by Gid. v. Wainwright?

How do you mean?

Click to expand...

Yes, Gideonhad been denied counsel and, therefore, his Sixth Amendment rights, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, had been violated.

Now the question is, how bout the others Amendment under the 14A?

Like many Federal casesof 1A, 4A, 5A, 6A and 8A against the local governments.

Example: The Supreme Court had ruled in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932), the famous case of the Scottsboro Boys, that the right to counsel "was implied in the Bill of Rights and was an essential freedom".

That's the problem with local lawmakers, DA and Judges. They following their State Constitution and the lawregardless the Fourteenth Amendment.

imported post

NightOwl wrote:

Hawaii too.

Click to expand...

According to the wikipedia page on CCWs, Hawaii is a may-issue state.

imported post

Wc wrote:

heliopolissolutions wrote:

Wc wrote:

Why no ones remember Gideon v. Wainwright?

Click to expand...

I feel that all of these cases are paying great heed to the stare decisis.

Are you talking about the Mcdonald case or are you drawing a parallel to the incorporation issue with the protections granted by Gid. v. Wainwright?

How do you mean?

Click to expand...

Yes, Gideonhad been denied counsel and, therefore, his Sixth Amendment rights, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, had been violated.

Now the question is, how bout the others Amendment under the 14A?

Like many Federal casesof 1A, 4A, 5A, 6A and 8A against the local governments.

Example: The Supreme Court had ruled in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932), the famous case of the Scottsboro Boys, that the right to counsel "was implied in the Bill of Rights and was an essential freedom".

That's the problem with local lawmakers, DA and Judges. They following their State Constitution and the lawregardless the Fourteenth Amendment.

Click to expand...

This can't be a shock to you, convenience and individual agendas have a habit of superceding sound logic.