Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Who will write the Open Carry amicus briefs for future 2A battles?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    Who will write the Open Carry amicus briefs for future 2A battles?

    We need the foresight to prepare to influence big legal battles that loom on the horizon. When MacDonald comes back and says that the 2A applies to the states then the legal battles will begin, not end. Chief Justice Roberts foreshadowed these battles during the MacDonald v. Chicago oral argument.

    These legal battles will center on the scope of the states to regulate the right. We need to be ready to assert open carry as a fundamental right.

    We have lawyers, analysts, researchers, historians and generally smart people on this web site. We need to step upOCDO and deliver our own amicus briefs. If the Damn Brady Bunch can do it, we sure as hell can do it.

    Our premise:

    As a fundamental right Open Carry does not need government permission slip, and any regulation of this fundamental right must meet the highest level of scrutiny.

    Form:

    I would love to see a briefing in the style of the GMU complaint.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    Who will write the Open Carry amicus briefs for future 2A battles?

    We need the foresight to prepare to influence big legal battles that loom on the horizon. When MacDonald comes back and says that the 2A applies to the states then the legal battles will begin, not end. Chief Justice Roberts foreshadowed these battles during the MacDonald v. Chicago oral argument.

    These legal battles will center on the scope of the states to regulate the right. We need to be ready to assert open carry as a fundamental right.

    We have lawyers, analysts, researchers, historians and generally smart people on this web site. We need to step upOCDO and deliver our own amicus briefs. If the Damn Brady Bunch can do it, we sure as hell can do it.

    Our premise:

    As a fundamental right Open Carry does not need government permission slip, and any regulation of this fundamental right must meet the highest level of scrutiny.

    Form:

    I would love to see a briefing in the style of the GMU complaint.
    While I am not a lawyer and this is not an amicus brief, I have been fine tuning my argument on your topic.

    Should firearms or firearm owners be subject to testing to receive a license to carry a firearm?




    The Argument Against


    Author Nick Smith




    No, no, no... it says "....shall not be infringed." no training, no class, no license, nada...the government is to be absent from a citizens right to 'keep' (own) and 'bear' (carry, open or concealed).

    Now for one minute let's tear apart this stupid licensing idea.

    You take ONE test to drive a car when you are 16 and then NEVER have to prove competency again. The test is simple, multiple choice and teaches you nothing that you can't read on your own. You take ONE driving test and then NEVER have to prove your ability ever again, EVER. Your driver’s license is recognized in any of the 50 states. Therefore, you can have learned to drive in Alaska with very little traffic, yet your license is good in New York, New York or Los Angeles.

    You can therefore be 66 years old and have not taken a test, written or physical in 50 YEARS. Do you think cars have changed in the last 50 years? The 'you have to have a license to drive' argument doesn't hold water, it is a joke. How many times driving have you said to yourself; 'that old man shouldn't be driving', 'that woman shouldn't be driving', 'that immigrant shouldn't be driving', 'that teenager shouldn't be driving?' We have all said this to ourselves. The argument simply is ridiculous and is now null and void.

    And even with licensing, we still have; drunk drivers, negligent drivers,hit and runs,get away (from crime) drivers, stolen cars and more.

    YOU SEE THAT LICENSING DRIVERS (AND CARS) DOES NOTHING TO PREVENT CRIME FROM CARS...OR FROM DRIVERS.

    We must all simply accept that we choose to live in a free society. In a free society their are inherit risks and there is evil and there is great joy. Part of living in a free society is that we must accept responsibility for our actions. There are things in a free society that people will always not like and will always be opposed to and never agree upon, we must learn to accept that and yet choose to live together in peace and respect.

    LIVE FREE OR DIE!



    Live Free or Die!

Posting Permissions

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