NYS requirement for "cause" to qualify for CCW survives 2A challenge

[davidmcbeth]

Because I am denser than unobtanium, please show me where in the Second Amendment it

- gives any right (Need a chain-yanking smiley)
- protects a right to form a militia
- protects a militia's right to practice

Opinions are nice, but sometimes in order for others to accept them as valid or grounded they need to be backed up with, at least, a showing that you are not the only one holding that opinion. Since I am not expecting case law citations, I will gladly settle for any generally-accepted opinions that support yours -- even those generally acepted by the lunatic fringe.

stay safe.

2nd Amendment:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. (from memory)


No right to a militia? You cannot see it? Its the FIRST phrase in the 2nd amendment ... No one ever said we have no right to form a militia...its the liberals who took this to mean it meant the national guard (they are the loons)

right to practice? See the gun range case in chicago (http://www.saf.org/) is a good source for information.

What, you saying that militias can be formed but they have no right to practice? That runs afoul of the chicago case too..its a baby step away, yes?

And I agree..the 2nd amendment does not GIVE a right .. it just states that the gov't cannot abridge these natural rights .. see 9th amendment (and opinions regarding the 2nd touch on this issue--see Heller, McDonald, Miller cases) as well that I think also cements in our gun rights in respect to our right to defend ourselves..

Hardly opinion ... I state facts, not opinions. Its OK ... you have been brain washed ... not your fault

 

[skidmark]

2nd Amendment:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. (from memory)


No right to a militia? You cannot see it? Its the FIRST phrase in the 2nd amendment ... No one ever said we have no right to form a militia...its the liberals who took this to mean it meant the national guard (they are the loons)

right to practice? See the gun range case in chicago (http://www.saf.org/) is a good source for information.

What, you saying that militias can be formed but they have no right to practice? That runs afoul of the chicago case too..its a baby step away, yes?

And I agree..the 2nd amendment does not GIVE a right .. it just states that the gov't cannot abridge these natural rights .. see 9th amendment (and opinions regarding the 2nd touch on this issue--see Heller, McDonald, Miller cases) as well that I think also cements in our gun rights in respect to our right to defend ourselves..

Hardly opinion ... I state facts, not opinions. Its OK ... you have been brain washed ... not your fault

I am just not inclined to teach grammar over the internet. It was not that much fun when I made high school freshmen learn it (often for the first time); I cannot see any amusement in doing it now. That a word is in a sentence does not mean it is the subject of the sentence. You might find http://legalblogwatch.typepad.com/legal_blog_watch/2008/03/grammarians-par.html and http://illinois.edu/blog/view/25/3721?count=1 and http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=606383 and http://www.gunchat.com/45n-90w-parsing-the-second-amendment-letting-it-say-what-it-says/ to be of interest, along with anything else that comes up in a net search of "parsing the Second Amendment". But then, as they challenge you assertions, you might not enjoy what they say.


I applaud your ability to derive "the right to practice" from the gun range case, which is merely a zoning matter. However, it would have been more appropriate to provide direct citations to the case, rather than sending us all on a chase through the SAF site to find anything actually bearing on the matter. You know, sort of like: http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=337 - announcing the lawsuit

http://ia600507.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475.docket.html - case filing documents

http://saf.org/legal.action/chicago2.lawsuit/ezelldecision.pdf - the court ruling

Took me possibly 45 seconds to do that, once I had tracked the thing down - which took appreciably longer.

It is not nice (as well as a violation of the forum rules: (16) NO FALSE ATTRIBUTIONS: Editing quoted posts by another member to make it appear as if they said something other than what they intended will NOT be tolerated!) to accuse me of saying that which I did not say. I never touched on any "right" (or otherwise) regarding the militia and its practicing - which, by the way, is more properly referred to as "drilling".

And as for your assertion that the Chicago gun range case has anything to do with a right of the militia to practice, I refer you to ILL. REV. STAT. ch. 1805, para. 94-95. Go look it up and then tell me how a Chicago (or even Chicago-based) militia would practice.

stay safe.

 

[Citizen]

Maybe it's being pedantic, but I don't think it is -

Isn't the militia inextricably linked to self defense, as opposed to the order you have put it?

The individual has a natural right to self defense. Individuals may extend that by banding together for mutual defense by forming a militia. Always though that was the progession of the argument.

stay safe.

What? Did you lose track of the first sentence by the time you read the fourth?

 

[skidmark]

What? Did you lose track of the first sentence by the time you read the fourth?

No. Just wnt to see things kept in their proper order. I'd be OCD if it weren't fot the driving need to keep things straight, and you know it.

stay safe.

 

[Gil223]

The federal government has drawn a distinction between the "organized militia" and the "unorganized militia".

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313* of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

I would assume (yes, I know) that (2) above, would be the "citizen militia" (for lack of a better term). Which brings us to Merriam-Webster.com for the generally accepted (in the USA):

Definition of MILITIA
1a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Then we have the asterisk (*) which refers us to:

32 USC § 313 - Appointments and enlistments: age limitations
(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.

If I'm not mistaken, (1a) above would constitute what is known as the National Guard and "Ready Reserve", and (1b) would be any body of citizens brought together as a group with the intent of actually performing military service (in uniform and under command).

Then (a)(2) combined with M-W's definition 2:, and 32 USC § 313 would encompass all males 17-45 (17-64 for prior military) being subject to call (not necessarily "called", but simply falling within the scope of the age requirements) would be considered "militia" under those guidelines. No organization required, no uniforms, no command structure (until needed). Kind of a "militia-at-large". Does that make sense to anybody but me? Pax...

 

[Citizen]

Eric Peters of EricPetersAuto.com has an articulate and interesting viewpoint on licensing natural rights.

Excerpts:

"Because freedom is illegal.

By definition. A child must ask permission of its parents. He is not free. A bondsman must ask permission of his master; he is not free. Anyone who must ask permission before he is permitted to act is not – cannot – be free."

http://ericpetersautos.com/2012/11/27/permission-slips-instead-of-rights/

 

[davidmcbeth]

I am just not inclined to teach grammar over the internet. It was not that much fun when I made high school freshmen learn it (often for the first time);

Those who cannot do ... teach.

 

[davidmcbeth]

regarding the militia and its practicing - which, by the way, is more properly referred to as "drilling".
stay safe.

Are you on medications

look no punctuation

figure it out

want good grammer and spelleing

go somewhere other than the intenet

 

[Freedom1Man]

Eric Peters of EricPetersAuto.com has an articulate and interesting viewpoint on licensing natural rights.

Excerpts:

"Because freedom is illegal.

By definition. A child must ask permission of its parents. He is not free. A bondsman must ask permission of his master; he is not free. Anyone who must ask permission before he is permitted to act is not – cannot – be free."

http://ericpetersautos.com/2012/11/27/permission-slips-instead-of-rights/

Looks like that will be an interesting read, somewhere along the lines of other papers that make similar points.

If you need permission then it's not freedom.

 

[Citizen]

Looks like that will be an interesting read, somewhere along the lines of other papers that make similar points.

If you need permission then it's not freedom.

His point about government criminalizing rights attracted my notice. It cuts through all the specious justifications. For example, reasonable regulation = you have to have a special need in order to get permission to CC in NYS.

 

[Freedom1Man]

His point about government criminalizing rights attracted my notice. It cuts through all the specious justifications. For example, reasonable regulation = you have to have a special need in order to get permission to CC in NYS.

I've read many essays about licensing. A license is permission to do something, a privilege. The states love to turn rights into privileges by means of a license.

 

[Citizen]

I've read many essays about licensing. A license is permission to do something, a privilege. The states love to turn rights into privileges by means of a license.

I have read many, too. None pointed out what Peter's does--the state criminalizing natural rights.

 

[Gil223]

"Because freedom is illegal.

By definition. A child must ask permission of its parents. He is not free. A bondsman must ask permission of his master; he is not free. Anyone who must ask permission before he is permitted to act is not – cannot – be free."

http://ericpetersautos.com/2012/11/27/permission-slips-instead-of-rights/

Interesting, yes. But not necessarily true. A child should ask permission of it's parents, and good parents would have counseled the child to do so. However, the child still is free to ignore the counsel of it's parents, and experience the consequences of his/her actions. A bondsman is a slave or serf - his only true restraints would necessarily have to be physical. If he is not physically restrained by high fences or walls, manacles, chains and locks, then he is restrained only by his personal inaction. If not physically restrained, and he truly desires to be free of that which binds him, he must take that first step toward garnering his freedom. Failure to do so removes him from the category of "slave" (in the strictest sense of the word)... rather, it makes him a "dependent of" his "master". Quite similar in that respect to the welfare recipient's symbiotic relationship with our government. Both are attempting to buy loyalty by way of supplying their slaves with goods and services (minimal food, clothing, shelter, medical care, etc.) which otherwise might be unobtainable, were the slaves to be left to their own skills and devices.
Peters has some interesting views, but he's no Immanuel Kant - "To be is to do." (Kant) Pax...

 

[Freedom1Man]

I have read many, too. None pointed out what Peter's does--the state criminalizing natural rights.

The ones I have read have used court rulings to show that the government is ignoring the laws.

There are court rulings that the lower courts ignore, cops ignore, etc.

Then are laws that get ignored all the time.