Why "most notably in the home" for keep and bear per SCOTUS?

[Jim675]

A Federal judge for the Maryland District just shot down the State's requirement for a "good and substantial" reason to grant a CC permit. This is good. Except for one little quibble.

This Maryland DC decision, building off of Heller and McDonald, still stresses that the right to be armed as "most notably in the home". I think this is a logic flaw that will eventually be dropped.

I understand the common reasoning that as we mingle in public our rights bump into the rights of others more often. However, since there's no Right to Feel Safe [SUP]TM[/SUP], I do not believe that a properly holstered handgun does violate the rights of others.

The "in the home" part is wrong for several reasons:

It assumes that we are responsible for ourselves while at home, but not in public? Who, then, is directly and immediately responsible for me, personally, in my travels?

Can the police pay as much attention to my personal safety as I do? Nope.

Does it imply that if I go to my office or shopping, my kids to public school or library, that those places will provide protection at least equal to my personally-carried firearm? Of course they won't, and can't.

Or does it imply that home is more dangerous and therefore additional protection is warranted?
Isn't this similar to the old canard of "most accidents take place within 5 miles of home"? Just as baseless and for the same reason? Most of us spend more time at home then anywhere else. If you work at home, are retired, unemployed, or on a break from school this might be a very large percentage of the time. Even for most on the job workers its over half their time. And yet, only one in four crimes happen at home. Why can't I protect myself against the other 3/4s of crimes?

The gov provides lots of tips on safeguarding your home, block watch programs, neighborhood alerts, etc. And yet, for 3/4s of crime I'm defenseless in many cases because of state and local laws.

My wish to preserve my well-being is a constant in any lawful location I care to visit. If the gov or other actors can't take responsibility for my safety as I travel why should the gov limit my own ability to do so?

And in case I haven't mentioned it today, Alan Gura should be able to travel by crowd-surfing wherever he wishes to go.

 

[DocWalker]

Haven't you heard nobody has ever been robbed, raped, attacked, or murdered outside their property line.......well according to the goverment at least.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Public space seems to be the crux of the argument on the other side for not permitting CC-OC. I have always felt safer in my home than in public. I am sure the numbers would point to me being safer in my home than in public, which begs the question: If I am permitted to have a firearm in my home for self-defense, then why would that not extend outside of my home where there is a greater likelihood that I am going to be forced to defend myself?

Living in a State, or City that doesn't permit CC-OC flat-out sucks! I would argue that we ought to establish something at the Federal level but people are so iffy about the Federal Government.

 

[ssheets]

A Federal judge for the Maryland District just shot down the State's requirement for a "good and substantial" reason to grant a CC permit. This is good. Except for one little quibble.

This Maryland DC decision, building off of Heller and McDonald, still stresses that the right to be armed as "most notably in the home". I think this is a logic flaw that will eventually be dropped.

I understand the common reasoning that as we mingle in public our rights bump into the rights of others more often. However, since there's no Right to Feel Safe [SUP]TM[/SUP], I do not believe that a properly holstered handgun does violate the rights of others.

The "in the home" part is wrong for several reasons:

It assumes that we are responsible for ourselves while at home, but not in public? Who, then, is directly and immediately responsible for me, personally, in my travels?

Can the police pay as much attention to my personal safety as I do? Nope.

Does it imply that if I go to my office or shopping, my kids to public school or library, that those places will provide protection at least equal to my personally-carried firearm? Of course they won't, and can't.

Or does it imply that home is more dangerous and therefore additional protection is warranted?
Isn't this similar to the old canard of "most accidents take place within 5 miles of home"? Just as baseless and for the same reason? Most of us spend more time at home then anywhere else. If you work at home, are retired, unemployed, or on a break from school this might be a very large percentage of the time. Even for most on the job workers its over half their time. And yet, only one in four crimes happen at home. Why can't I protect myself against the other 3/4s of crimes?

The gov provides lots of tips on safeguarding your home, block watch programs, neighborhood alerts, etc. And yet, for 3/4s of crime I'm defenseless in many cases because of state and local laws.

My wish to preserve my well-being is a constant in any lawful location I care to visit. If the gov or other actors can't take responsibility for my safety as I travel why should the gov limit my own ability to do so?

And in case I haven't mentioned it today, Alan Gura should be able to travel by crowd-surfing wherever he wishes to go.

Very good points and one thay roles into mine about your employer not allowing you to maintain a firearm in your vehicle. If you can't take it in the building (I can understand their right inside a private bldg.) and you can't keep it in your car, how do you protect yourself on the way back and forth?

 

[rushcreek2]

The "...in case of confrontation" Heller caveat obviously encompasses a journey through the public square as well a walk down the hallway from the kitchen to the bathroom.

If a person cannot have possession - or "keep" - a personal firearm WITH THEM in case of confrontation it logically follows that the firearm will not be at hand in the event of a threat- thus rendering the enumerated right to bring it to bear in defense of one's person quite useless indeed.

 

[MKEgal]

Most of our rights are most strongly protected in our home.
Next most on our property.

Think of search & seizure... Cops can look into your car in a parking lot, but if an officer wants to look around your home, or even your property (beyond what's visible from the public sidewalk), s/he has to have either your permission or permission from a judge.
(Or exigent circumstances, which are rare.)

Castle Doctrine is often easier to get passed in a state than is Stand Your Ground.

 

[rushcreek2]

Those RIGHTS specifically enumerated in the "bills of rights" adopted into our federal, and respective state LAW are so enshrined in order to deter tyrannical abuse of power by the federal and state governments.

Neither the U.S. Constitution, nor the respective constitutions of the several 50 states restricts such reserved, declared, and guaranteed rights TO THE HOME.

Any " well regulated militia" would be hard pressed to maintain the security of a free state if the right to bear arms was confined to the home, and newspapers printed for IN HOME consumption only offer little annoyance to tyranny.

On the contrary these rights are constitutionally protected PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY MOST DEFINITELY ARE NOT CONFINED TO THE HOME.

I am convinced that the most serious threat to the preservation of our rights is the current police state trend towards utilizing the motor vehicle traffic stop to trample on citizen's rights. The "Officer safety" preemption of a citizen's right to peaceful enjoyment simply because they have entered a motor vehicle has now expanded to trampling on the rights of anyone in proximity to such a traffic stop- as though the traffic stop was a presumptive "crime scene".

I understand that routine traffic stops are a very productive tool for law enforcement, but the practice is approaching the threshold of becoming a form of routine tyranny.