Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumMd Gun law found unconstitutional
About permits to carry only being issued upon a showing of good cause.
Will MD be the next "shall issue" state?
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/03/05/md-gun-law-found-unconstitutional/
Excerpt:
BALTIMORE (AP) — Maryland’s requirement that residents show a “good and substantial reason” to get a handgun permit is unconstitutional, according to a federal judge’s opinion filed Monday.
States can channel the way their residents exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms, but because Maryland’s goal was to minimize the number of firearms carried outside homes by limiting the privilege to those who could demonstrate “good reason,” it had turned into a rationing system, infringing upon residents’ rights, U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg wrote.
“A citizen may not be required to offer a `good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights,” he wrote. “The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
bowens43
(16,064 posts)the death merchants and their supporters are again happily dancing on the graves of our murdered children.....
kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)I am all for an expansion of civil rights, including 2nd ammendment rights.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)those are the people who put most of the children in their graves. Shooting at each other over market share with stray bullets hitting innocents. Remember that the next time you light up your bong.
The rest? Can you show an example, just one, of a CCW holder shooting up a school or a mall?
The courts got it right. "May issue" is about rich and well connected regardless on need (or LA County campaign contributors to the sheriff's re election).
I guess Vermont has the worst murder rate in the US, oh wait it is safer than most of Europe. Come to think of it, El Paso is safer than many Canadian cities. The US Virgin Islands has the worst in the US (12 times the US average) even with their very strict gun laws.
MerkMan
(1 post)What part of "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."?? Shall not be infringed! The case of the District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) put a nail in the connection between the right to bear arms and militia or military service. It is quite clear that immediately after the Freedom of speech the very next most important right, as enumerated by the founders of this greatest and most noble experiment in self governance, was the right to armed self defense. It seems to me they finally took the blinders off and realized that legal weapons are almost never used in crime. I sure don't want you sitting on a jury judging me if that's your opinion of what our courts should be doing.
Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)That court was WRONG to separate the right of "the people" to bear arms from the militia and militia service. Even state arms-bearing provisions (from that time) which didn't even mention a well regulated militia were MILITIA provisions.
Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776.
XIII. "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
From the Second Amendment debate in the First Congress: Mr Gerry - "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." Establishing the militia is the purpose of the provision above AND the Second Amendment.
The right secured above is for "the people" of the state, as a collective body, to maintain a militia for their defence. Look at another provision from the same declaration of rights:
VIII. "That every member of society hath a right TO BE PROTECTED in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, and therefore is bound to contribute his proportion towards the expence OF THAT PROTECTION, and yield HIS PERSONAL SERVICE when necessary, or an equivalent thereto:... Nor can any man who is conscientiously scrupulous of BEARING ARMS, be justly compelled thereto, if he will pay such equivalent."
Unlike the first provision, this one deals with PERSONAL rights and responsibilities. "Personal service" refers to MILITIA service. To "contribute" is to pax tax for the expence of the MILITIA service. "That protection" is MILITIA protection.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state
That every member of society hath a right TO BE PROTECTED in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property
Thanks for helping make the posters point..
Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)The words "every member" of society do NOT make the other posters point. This related provision is dealing with the right of each individual "TO BE PROTECTED" and the duty of each individual to pay for and SERVE in the MILITIA. By contrast, the arms-bearing provision does NOT secure a right for "every member" of society.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)Your most decidedly in the minority opinion. Just imagine if we applied your logic to the rest of the bill of rights...
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)For what? Do you want evidence that being bound to yield his "service" means 'service in the militia?'
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)court precidents, anything that supports your claims.
Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)I already have, in every post.
In my very first post, I showed how state constitutions ALWAYS protected a collective right of "the people" to maintain a militia EVEN WITHOUT mentioning a "well regulated militia."
The provisions that obliged "every member of society" to contribute towards the expence "of the protection" and to offer "his service" or pay to be exempt from "bearing arms" are CLEARLY dealing with MILITIA matters even though a militia isn't even mentioned in the arms-bearing provision: "That the people have a right to bear arms.." That ALONE is dealing with military matters. The second half of the Second Amendment is ALSO dealing with military matters. When "the people" are bearing arms, they're maintaining a "well regulated militia." .
Look at it again: "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."
The second half protects what's in the first half. THEY'RE THE SAME THING.
Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)Also, most of the existing state provisions were almost identical to this:
Virginia (June 12, 1776)
13. "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state;.... "
This IS the people bearing arms and this is what the Second Amendment protects. Gun carrying is NOT what ANY of these provisions are about. Look at this proposal:
New York (July 26,1788)
"That the people have the right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
Who believes that the framers of this proposal thought it necessary to point out that the militia should include individuals who were capable of picking up a gun? If
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"That the people have the right to keep and bear arms"
they did it right there. They did it, because without that, you cannot in times of need form this:
"that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms"
Which is necessary to this:
", is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
No matter what gymnastics you try, at the end of the day, in plain english, every single one of these clauses rests upon the people (individuals) being armed.
Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)...this is what they intended:
"That individuals have the right to own and carry guns; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of individuals capable of carrying guns, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
You accuse me of gymnastics, but you ignored the part that I highlighted ("the body of the people capable of bearing arms"
.
Did the framers of this proposal think it necessary to point out that the militia should consist of individuals who were capable of picking up a gun?
Doesn't it make more sense to view "capable of bearing arms" as "eligible to render military service" or "trained to arms?"
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Training can be given in times of need (and has been, on an ad-hoc basis).
You realize "including" is not an exclusive statement right? If NOT specifically and exclusively "the body of the people capable of carrying arms", who else?
(answer: the people)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)it's probably better to quote it as ratified by the states.
"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."
You are correct that the second half is related to a militia function. You seem to be going off the rails on WHY. It is not that being armed maintains a well-regulated militia, it is that the people being armed is a sine qua non to having a militia AT ALL.
Individual carry and individual self-defense is in the interest of the security of a free state as well.
Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)Because the final article alone is easier to distort?
By examining all the different drafts, proposals and existing state provisions, we get a better idea of the purpose and meaning of the Second Amendment.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The others don't. It is interesting that you do not use the wording as ratified, and in force of law.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...of this opinion not shared by the majority of the founders or, for that matter, the fellow who wrote the words you're debating would be: thin, very thin.
Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)He didn't mean 'all individuals', he meant that the militia was drawn from "all classes."
"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of ALL CLASSES, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people."
The "public officers" he refers to would be exempt from military service.
When he says that the militia may be confined to the lower and middle classes of "the people," does he mean that the militia may be confined to the lower and middle classes of "individuals?"
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...and the class of people pressed into military service are unrelated here.
No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valour. But when once a standing army is established, in any country, the people lose their liberty. When against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence — yeomanry, unskillful & unarmed, what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havock, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies? An instance within the memory of some of this house, — will shew us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people. That it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. But that they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually, by totally difusing and neglecting the militia. {14 June 1788}
The idea of our militia is built on the idea of all men developing a day-to-day use of and familiarity with arms. That their skills in maintenance and marksmanship be acquired in both private experience and coordinated training.
Any good military is infantry first. Skills practiced seasonally are not quickly sharpened. The essence of the original idea of our militia lives today in our military being composed of regular (as opposed to special) citizens. Those individuals who by their civilian experience bring a preexisting skill-at-arms to the military when they join are the tip of the spear.
Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)The very next part of the quote is "unrelated?" No, it's just inconvenient if you're trying to distort what he was actually saying. You were trying to claim that "the whole people" was a reference to all individuals. Weren't "public officers" individuals? Why say "exept a few public officers?"
You've posted more of Mason's speech, but again, you don't seem to realize what he was saying.
"An instance within the memory of some of this house, — will shew us how our (the State) militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people. That it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. But that they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia."
Mason is NOT saying that the people would be disarmed if individuals had their guns confiscsted. He considers that "the people" would be "disarmed" if the use of militia forces were neglected and they were allowed to sink. As I've said from the start, when "the people" are bearing arms, they're maintaining a militia.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)Absolutely!
Every instance of a lawful use of firearm, hunting, sporting, self-defense, anything activity that involves shooting, is an act that maintains our militia.
Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)You posted a quote from George Mason and I've shown how, in context, it supports my argument. Now you've posted a quote from Joseph Story which ALSO, in context, supports my argument.
"The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights."
This is all militia, militia, militia.
Yes, Joseph Story uses the word "citizens" instead of "the people." But despite this mistake, all he meant was that a "well regulated militia" consisting of citizen soldiers (rather than full-time soldiers and standing armies) is the "palladium of the liberties of a republic."
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)On this I can we should agree to disagree,
as there are none so blind as those who will not see.
have a nice day
Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)That's true. But I'm not the one who will not see. You will not see anything except the word "citizens."
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)I was (and still am) happy to leave this as a peaceful disagreement but you seem bent on both advancing your OPINION and having the last word.
Here are some quotes for you:
John F. Kennedy: "By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' '‘the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy... The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."
Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm: "The Second Amendment was meant to accomplish two distinct goals...First, it was meant to guarantee the individual’s right to have arms for self-defense and self-preservation. These privately owned arms were meant to serve a larger purpose as we...and it is the coupling of these two objectives that has caused the most confusion. The customary American militia necessitated an armed public...the militia (being)...the body of the people. The argument that today’s National Guardsmen, members of a select militia, would constitute the only persons entitled to keep and bear arms has no historical foundation."
Thomas Jefferson: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
I can go further into history and to other cultures and find other examples. The basis for the US government is in the Declaration of Independence. In saying "...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." a foundation is made here that any power of the government arises from an analogous power which each individual possesses. From where would an authority or power, possessed by a group, derive from were it not possessed by each individual?
Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)John F. Kennedy: "By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' '‘the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen..."
Do you expect me to say "Well, if JFK thought that the Second Amendment says "the right of each citizen," then so do I?"
Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Acurate quote: "No Freeman shall be debarred the use of arms in his own lands or tenements."
This has NO bearing on the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment as it was a proposal for his State Constitution which was rejected. With this proposal for a right for Freemen to use arms for private purposes on their own lands, why doesn't Jefferson use the phrase "bear arms?"
Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm: "...The argument that today’s National Guardsmen... would constitute the only persons entitled to keep and bear arms has no historical foundation."
These quotes don't actually contain any evidence to examine. The right doesn't belong to the "persons" in the militia. Just as with the Kennedy quote, words are being used that aren't in the Second Amendment.
Thomas Jefferson: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Jefferson wrote a book ABOUT law and included this quote in the book. But it's not HIS quote. It has no bearing on the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment.
There are two quotes from Jefferson where he SPECIFICALLY mentions the Second Amendment. He describes it as:
1. "Freedom from standing armies"
2. "The substitution of militia for a standing army."
It's a militia amendment.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...we can agree to disagree.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."
Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)I have NOT misinterpreted the provision I was talking about. Posting this provision (enacted in 1889) only shows the contrast between a collective and a personal right.
Even though this provision protects a personal right, the second half of it leads me to believe that this is Washington's militia provision but it's been extended to each individual.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)extra-judicial armed groups, specifically: the Pinkerton's. Such groups were problematic to the government.
The plain meaning of our state amendment is: individuals may be armed. This also serves the State Guard (not national guard, but state militia, which still today is a separate entity in WA) in that the militia is formed of the people in times of need.
Same misinterpetation problem you are having with the federal amendment. The prefatory clause of the 2nd amendment only says WHY, not WHAT. That is why the word PEOPLE appears in the second half. Again, in times of need, the militia is formed of the people, and therefore the people must be allowed to have arms.
Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)You say it was "aimed" at individuals and other groups, but it actually says that those individuals and groups are NOT authorized to form a body of armed men (a militia). Like I said, this leads me to believe that it is a state militia provision which allows for self defence.
The plain meaning of our state amendment is: individuals may be armed..
Why do you say "be armed" and not "keep arms?"
Same misinterpetation problem you are having with the federal amendment.
Hang on, you can't post a state provision, that was enacted over a century later, which refers to each individual citizen defending himself and apply the same meaning to the Second Amendment.
...the militia is formed of the people, and therefore the people must be allowed to have arms.
You mean that the militia consists of individuals, therefore individuals must be allowed to own guns. But militiamen had a DUTY to serve AND to provide a musket for his militia service. A "right" for a militiaman to own a gun wasn't necessary to arm the militia. I mean, the AoC declares that every state will keep a sufficient quantity of arms and ammo' in public stores. So, the militia can be armed without a personal right to own a gun.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Please re-read my statement, and the amendment. If you cannot identify what I said in plain english, we're pretty much done here. (hint, your objection is basically what I said)
"Why do you say "be armed" and not "keep arms?" "
Because it is a distinction without a difference.
"Hang on, you can't post a state provision, that was enacted over a century later, which refers to each individual citizen defending himself and apply the same meaning to the Second Amendment."
There is a clear line of evolution in the 38 or so odd states that explicitly protect the right to keep and bear arms in their constitutions, that leads to this meaning. This is also a tenth amendment issue, as the 2nd only says what the Federal Government may not do, not what the people may do.
"You mean that the militia consists of individuals, therefore individuals must be allowed to own guns. But militiamen had a DUTY to serve AND to provide a musket for his militia service. A "right" for a militiaman to own a gun wasn't necessary to arm the militia. I mean, the AoC declares that every state will keep a sufficient quantity of arms and ammo' in public stores. So, the militia can be armed without a personal right to own a gun."
That didn't work too good for us last time. Query: in any recent legitimate example of the function of a citizens' militia in use in the united states, did the people have time to check out weapons from an armory? (LA Riots, about 70 Korean store owners formed an ad-hoc militia to defend several square blocks of storefronts, arguably in the interest of the security of a free state).
Regardless of whether the state COULD supply arms to the people in time of need, both the federal and state constitutions that apply where I live specify quite clearly, that the PEOPLE shall keep them. That doesn't mean an armory to me.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)XIII. "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
Clearly, in Virginia at least, people have the right to bear arms not only for defense of the state but also their own defense.
Also, don't you think it's a bit silly of an idea that a man can keep weapons of war in his home for use in service to a militia but could not also use those weapons to defend himself, his family, and his home?
Also, you'll notice that the second amendment reads thusly:
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.
You'll notice here that the right to keep and bear arms has been enumerated to the people, and not to the militias.
It would have been trivial to say that only militias had the right to keep and bear arms. But the founders did not do that.
Let me ask you a question:
From the below:
From the Second Amendment debate in the First Congress: Mr Gerry - "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." Establishing the militia is the purpose of the provision above AND the Second Amendment.
Why do you suppose the founders thought a standing army was "the bane of liberty"?
Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)The defence of "themselves" is the same as the "common" defence. You failed to address all my points by focusing on that one word.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)So when it says, "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves" you are saying that two people can work in concert to defend each other but one person alone cannot defend himself?
Do you think this also applies to other rights, such as the freedom of religion, or the freedom of speech, or the right to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Do you think that individuals don't have the right of freedom of religion? Do you think that individuals do not have protected speech? Do you think a lone journalist is exempted from protection of the press?
Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)
So when it says, "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves" you are saying that two people can work in concert to defend each other but one person alone cannot defend himself?
You're still focusing on that one word to avoid addressing all the points I made in my first post.
Anyway, your error this time is to assume that "the people" is referring to individual members of society. But it isn't.
Sketches of American Policy By Noah Webster.
"This association of all the individuals of a community is called the body politic or State... The members, spoken of COLLECTIVELLY, are called PEOPLE, spoken of SEVERALLY, they may be called CITIZENS."
When the people are bearing arms in their COLLECTIVE capacity, they're maintaining a militia.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Well no shit - it's the one word in what you quoted that provides an example of the right of individuals to defend themselves.
Anyway, your error this time is to assume that "the people" is referring to individual members of society. But it isn't.
So again, when the first amendment speaks of "the people", does it mean that individuals cannot peaceably assemble or petition the government for a redress of grievances?
Do individuals have the right to freedom of religion, and free speech?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Anyway, the Supreme Court and the President of the United States disagree with your collective rights interpretation.
“I believe the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms.” - President Barack Obama
Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)Even though I've shown that "the people" is NOT used to refer to individual members of society, you still insist that "the people" defending "themselves" is about self defence?
In most constitutions, "the people" have the right to govern "themselves" as a state. Is that also a personal right because of the word "themselves?"
So again, when the first amendment speaks of "the people", does it mean that individuals cannot peaceably assemble or petition the government for a redress of grievances?
Wherever you see "the people," a collective body is being identified. If you see it in a state constitution, only the people of THAT state are being identified.
Now, in a state, the people may have the right to assemble and they may ALSO have the right to change the government. They're both rights of a collective body, but they differ IN THEIR APPLICATION. An individual belonging to that body can choose to assemble, but as an individual, he can't claim the right to change the government. The same applies to bearing arms for the security of the state. This is a matter for the people as a whole.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Except you have not shown that "the people" is not about individuals.
Again, it is absurd to claim that "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves" means that two people can defend themselves but one person cannot. These people were expected to keep military-grade infantry weapons and ammunition at home but you are saying that they could not be trusted to defend themselves individually, nor their homes, nor their families. That is absurd.
Now, in a state, the people may have the right to assemble and they may ALSO have the right to change the government. They're both rights of a collective body, but they differ IN THEIR APPLICATION. An individual belonging to that body can choose to assemble, but as an individual, he can't claim the right to change the government. The same applies to bearing arms for the security of the state. This is a matter for the people as a whole.
So you are claiming that individuals are not protected under the 1st and 14th amendment, or any part of the Bill of Rights for that matter.
You are essentially saying that individuals do not have Constitutionally-protected rights, and that rights must be exercised collectively.
That is ridiculous. The Supreme Court of the United States and President Obama both disagree with your interpretation.
Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)See post #20.
If you need more, here's more:
Bouviers Law Dictionary:
BODY POLITIC: " ..As to the persons who compose the body politic, they take COLLECTIVELY the name, of PEOPLE, or nation; and INDIVIDUALLY they are CITIZENS...?"
These people were expected to keep military-grade infantry weapons and ammunition at home but you are saying that they could not be trusted to defend themselves individually..
It isn't a matter of whether or not they could be trusted with self defence, it's a matter of whether or not self defence was the PURPOSE for the provision. The purpose was to establish the militia to prevent the need for a standing army for state security.
You are essentially saying that individuals do not have Constitutionally-protected rights, and that rights must be exercised collectively.
When have I said that there are no protected individual rights? All I'm saying is: the right's that you claim are individual rights are NOT individual rights.
Why did you avoid addressing my point about rights differing in their application?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)right wingers freaked when Obama pointed out that the BoR lists negative rights? Obama was right, it lists limits on the government, not a list of what the government grants.
First Amendment – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Second 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.
Third Amendment –No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law
.
Fourth Amendment –The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Fifth Amendment – No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Sixth Amendment – In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Seventh Amendment –In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Eighth Amendment –Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Ninth Amendment –The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Tenth Amendment – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
See the problem?
The SCOTUS, POTUS, most Constitutional scholars agree that it is an individual right. Semantic masturbation does not change that.
Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)I never said the government grants rights. Are you saying that only individual rights can be protected from the government? If not, what's your point?
See the problem?
No. All you've done is post the Bill of Rights with the word "people" in bold.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I am saying they are all individual rights. Your claim of collective rights have not been taken seriously by most scholars.
You are changing the definition of "people" from individuals to a militia to serve an ideology. I was pointing that out. If that was not obvious to you, nothing I can do about it.
Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)The individual rights are free speech, freedom of religion and the right to a speedy trial by jury. All individuals have these rights whether or not they're one of "the people." But not all individuals have the right to assemble to petition the government for regress of grievances.
Some state constitutions declare that "the people" have the right to regulate the police. This is a COLLECTIVE right that is retained by "the people" by the 9th Amendment.
You are changing the definition of "people" from individuals to a militia
It's "the people," not "people."
I've provided cites from Webster and Bouvier for the definition as well as examples of "the people" being used in protected rights that OVBIOUSLY aren't personal rights.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)why do Brady lawyers always cite preincorporation "states rights" decisions? United States v. Cruikshank is always used, and was one of the worst anti-civil rights decisions that makes Plessy or Citizens United look good.
Basically, it said that if you live in the wrong state, you don't have first or second amendment rights. Oh yeah, it also said the 14th wasn't worth the effort. But it does not say anything about a "well regulated militia"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank
Can you name a SCOTUS precedent showing the collective rights theory? Not US v Miller, all it said was that there was no evidence that a short barreled shotgun was not a military weapon (thus unprotected). Since Miller was dead and was not represented, it was a one sided conversation.
Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)Tenth Amendment – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Massachusetts Declaration of the Rights.
IV. "The people of this Commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, or may not hereafter, be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America, in Congress assembled."
Here, "the people" is one collective body with an "exclusive" right. It's this body which retains rights and reserves powers in the 9th and 10th Amendments. There's NO reason to assume that "the people" in the U.S. BoR means something different than it does in EVERY state declaration of rights at that time.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)So the citizen could be trusted with military-grade infantry weapons and ammunition at home for military service in the name of "state security", but could not be trusted to defend themselves, their homes, or their families as individuals. Sounds completely illogical to me.
It is absurd to argue that citizens can function as soldiers to prevent the central government from oppressing them yet they can't defend themselves as individuals.
Why did you avoid addressing my point about rights differing in their application?
Because I think it is absurd to say that there is a right that two people can enjoy that one person cannot. If two people can do it, than one person can do it, too.
Again, the Supreme Court and the President of the United States do not agree with your interpretation.
All nine justices agreed that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.
The President of the United States, who also happens to be a Harvard graduate, has stated that he believes it is an individual right.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)When I click on 'reply' to your post I'm told that I'm already logged in. So I'm replying to you from this post.
We were talking about collective rights, and you seemed to be denying they exist. For some reason, you started talking about United States v. Cruikshank: "Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong. They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as their collective rights."
But who needs a court to tell us they exist? Just Look at any state constitution from that time.
VII.--Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; Therefore the people alone have an incontestible, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it.
VIII.--In order to prevent those, who are vested with authority, from becoming oppressors, the people have a right, at such periods and in such manner as they shall establish by their frame of government, to cause their public officers to return to private life; and to fill up vacant places by certain and regular elections and appointments.
XVII.--The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as in time of peace armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
(Note: The word "common" is not what makes 'XVII' a collective right, it's "the people." See how the wording of XVII contrasts with the following. X.--Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary: But no part of the property of any individual, can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people: In fine, the people of this Commonwealth are not controlable by any other laws, than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent. And whenever the public exigencies require, that the property of any individual should be appropriated to public uses, he shall receive a reasonable compensation therefor.)
XIX.--The people have a right, in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble to consult upon the common good; give instructions to their representatives; and to request of the legislative body, by the way of addresses, petitions, or remonstrances, redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer.
(Can "the people" of a different state give instructions to these representatives? No. "The people" here is the collective body of the people of this state.)
XXIX.--It is essential to the preservation of the rights of every individual, his life, liberty, property and character, that there be an impartial interpretation of the laws, and administration of justice. It is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges as free, impartial and independent as the lot of humanity will admit. It is therefore not only the best policy, but for the security of the rights of the people, and of every citizen, that the judges of the supreme judicial court should hold their offices as long as they behave themselves well; and that they should have honorable salaries ascertained and established by standing laws.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)The idea that I am only free when I am with someone else is absurd at face value.
Anything that four people are free to do three people are also free to do.
Anything that three people are free to do two people are also free to do.
Anything that two people are free to do one person is also free to do.
Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)So, all the rights that I presented (from just ONE declaration of rights) are all personal rights?
Anything that two people are free to do one person is also free to do.
That's true. But two individuals are not free to "institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same." Only "the people" AS A WHOLE are free to do this.
Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)Repeat: Individuals are not free to "institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same." Only "the people" AS A WHOLE are free to do this.
The reason I'm doing this is: Because the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment has been distorted, groups of armed individuals (claiming to be the militia) believe that they have the right to change the Government against the wishes of "the people" as a whole.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Name one way where individuals cannot act as groups of people to "institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same."
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Exactly.
That's true. But two individuals are not free to "institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same." Only "the people" AS A WHOLE are free to do this.
But two people are free to do everything that the people as a whole can do to institute government, and to reform, alter, or totally change the same.
There is nothing that the people as a whole can do that two people, or a single person, cannot do, and vice versa.
Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)So, Ron Paul and Alex Jones have the right to "totally change" and "institute government" by themselves because "the people" as a whole have that right? How does "Vice President Jones" sound to you?
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)They have the right to do those things as anyone else does, either as individuals or as a group.
Again, name me one thing that individuals cannot do that people can do to "institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same."
Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)It's "the people." I've already given you several examples from just one declaration of rights. What more can I do if you keep denying the obvious?
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Name one action that the people can take that individuals cannot take to "institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same."
Yes, it is a given that success will not come without the consent of "the people". This has nothing to do with the rights of individual or group actions.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Name me one thing that individuals cannot do that people can do to "institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same.
Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)Ok, Individuals cannot "institute,.. reform, alter, or totally change" government without the consent of the people as a whole.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)You are suggesting that individuals may not SUCCEED at any ACTION designed to "institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same."
I did not ask you that. I asked you to name one thing that they could not actually DO. As in, a specific action.
Name one action that individuals cannot DO while trying to "institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same." that the people can do.
Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)"Name one action that individuals cannot DO while trying to "institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same." that the people can do."
If you ask the wrong questions, you'll draw the wrong conclusions.
The question should be: What don't individuals have the RIGHT to do that the people as a whole have the RIGHT to do? The answer is: "institute,.. reform, alter, or totally change" Government.
Asking me to name an "action" that individuals cannot "do" while "trying" to do these things is pointless. They just don't have the right.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Asking me to name an "action" that individuals cannot "do" while "trying" to do these things is pointless. They just don't have the right.
You're almost there.
We both agree that all of the people have the right to institute, reform, alter, or totally change government (through some action or actions).
And we both agree that doing so requires the consent of all of the people.
But in order to meet these objectives, all of the people have to undertake certain actions.
So the question is, what actions do all of the people have the right to undertake to institute, reform, alter, or totally change government?
And more specifically, what actions are individuals not allowed to take to institute, reform, alter, or totally change government that the people can?
I'll give you an example:
The people have the right to peaceably assemble to protest their government, as they did in Zuchatti Park during the Occupy Wall Street Protest. But individuals have the right to do this also, as I have done while holding down the fort at our local Occupy protest when I was the only one at that time spot who could attend.
Come on! Why are you having such a hard time with this question? Just name one action that the people can undertake to institute, reform, alter, or totally change government that individuals can't.
Just one.
Asking me to name an "action" that individuals cannot "do" while "trying" to do these things is pointless. They just don't have the right.
So tell me, then, what actions do the people have while trying to do these things? Since we agree the people have this right, what is an action that the people have to do these things that individuals do not?
Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)I'm saying that the people as a body have that right.
And we both agree that doing so requires the consent of all of the people.
I'm saying that it requires the consent of the people as a body
But in order to meet these objectives, all of the people have to undertake certain actions.
I'm saying that the people as a body need to undertake certain actions.
So the question is, what actions do all of the people have the right to undertake to institute, reform, alter, or totally change government?
The people as a body has the right to hold elections and elect the Government.
And more specifically, what actions are individuals not allowed to take to institute, reform, alter, or totally change government that the people can?
Wrong question. What action does an individual NOT have the RIGHT to take to institute, reform, alter, or totally change government? An individual does not have the right to hold an election or to elect the Government.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)I agree with you that the people as a body have that right. So what actions can the people as a body take to institute, reform, alter, or totally change government that individuals cannot take?
I'm saying that it requires the consent of the people as a body
Again, of course. No action by an individual or small group of individuals will succeed without the consent of the people. This does not mean that an individual or small group of individuals does not have the right to undertake actions to institute, reform, alter, or totally change government. It just means that they may not succeed.
For example, I have the right to write my own name in for President of the United States when I cast my ballot. Obviously I will not actually become president without the consent of the people as a body. This does not mean that I do not have the right to so cast my vote.
I'm saying that the people as a body need to undertake certain actions.
But what "certain actions" can the people as a body undertake that individuals cannot take?
The people as a body has the right to hold elections and elect the Government.
Ah, finally an attempt to answer the question.
Elections are held by the government, generally under the purview of the Secretary of State. Though individuals can and do volunteer to help out at polling places and the like.
And individuals have just as much right to participate in elections as do the people as a body, as my example above shows.
Wrong question. What action does an individual NOT have the RIGHT to take to institute, reform, alter, or totally change government?
No, you re-worded my question.
You said that the people as a body have the right to undertake actions to institute, reform, alter, or totally change government. I agree. But my question remains, what actions can the people as a body undertake that individuals cannot?
An individual does not have the right to hold an election or to elect the Government.
As I said, the government holds elections, and individuals have as much a right to participate in electing the government as do groups of people. Try again.
Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)VII.--Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; Therefore the people alone have an incontestible, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it.
As I said, the government holds elections, and individuals have as much a right to participate in electing the government as do groups of people. Try again.
(For that provision to be protecting a personal right, an individual acting "alone" would have an unalienable right to "totally change" the government.)
VIII.--In order to prevent those, who are vested with authority, from becoming oppressors, the people have a right, at such periods and in such manner as they shall establish by their frame of government, to cause their public officers to return to private life; and to fill up vacant places by certain and regular elections and appointments.
(Does an individual acting alone have the right to "cause their public officers to return to private life?"
XXIX.--It is essential to the preservation of the rights of every individual, his life, liberty, property and character, that there be an impartial interpretation of the laws, and administration of justice. It is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges as free, impartial and independent as the lot of humanity will admit. It is therefore not only the best policy, but for the security of the rights of the people, and of every citizen, that the judges of the supreme judicial court should hold their offices as long as they behave themselves well; and that they should have honorable salaries ascertained and established by standing laws.
(Does this refer to personal rights twice?)
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)What actions do the people alone undertake to have an incontestible, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it, that individuals cannot also undertake?
(For that provision to be protecting a personal right, an individual acting "alone" would have an unalienable right to "totally change" the government.)
What actions can the people alone undertake to totally change the government that individuals cannot undertake?
(Does an individual acting alone have the right to "cause their public officers to return to private life?"
Yes, individuals act alone the same way as the people as a body do - by voting.
What action do you think the people as a body can take to cause their public officers to return to private life that individuals cannot take?
Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)VII.--Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; Therefore the people alone have an incontestible, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it.
I said - "For that provision to be protecting a personal right, an individual acting "alone" would have an unalienable right to "totally change" the government."
Atypical Liberal replied - "What actions do the people alone undertake to have an incontestible, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it, that individuals cannot also undertake?"
---------
I've already answered that question, but you won't accept the answer. To save us going round and round, do you agree with my statement? "For that provision to be protecting a personal right, an individual acting "alone" would have an unalienable right to "totally change" the government."
Where you're going wrong:
1. You're asking what "actions" the people alone "undertake" rather that what "right" the people alone "have."
2. You're asking what actions "individuals" cannot undertake rather that what right doesn't "an individual acting ALONE" have.
Basically, you're trying to distort what is clearly a collective right into an individual right because "the people" consists of individuals. A judge and jury consists of individuals, but they're there on behalf of the people as a whole. An individual acting ALONE cannot hold a trial or declare himself to be the judge or a juror.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Your mistake is that you continue to confuse success with action.
Individuals alone cannot totally change government. Not because they don't have the right to do so, but because they don't have the power to succeed against the will of everyone else.
But individuals alone have the same right to try and totally change government as groups of individuals.
They can protest. They can speak. They can vote.
Again, name one action that the people as a whole can take to totally change government that individuals cannot take.
I've already answered that question, but you won't accept the answer.
No, you have not given a single example of an action that the people as a whole can undertake to change government that individuals cannot take.
To save us going round and round, do you agree with my statement? "For that provision to be protecting a personal right, an individual acting "alone" would have an unalienable right to "totally change" the government."
Individuals have the same rights to act to totally change government as the people as a whole.
In fact, it is individual action that allows the people as a whole to vote. You don't see groups of people casting ballots, do you? Every individual cast their own individual ballot.
1. You're asking what "actions" the people alone "undertake" rather that what "right" the people alone "have."
That's right. I have the right to do X. What actions can I thus undertake to achieve X?
You claim the people as a whole have the right to change government. What actions can they thus undertake to achieve that goal that individuals cannot also undertake?
Rights are meaningless without actions to attain them.
So, once again, name one action that the people as a body can undertake to change government that an individual cannot take.
Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)I said - "..do you agree.. For that provision to be protecting a personal right, an individual acting "alone" would have an unalienable right to "totally change" the government."
Individuals have the same rights to act to totally change government as the people as a whole.
Look at your reply, then tell me, where does it address anything about "an individual acting ALONE?" You're ignoring the most relevant part of my post.
If you'd said that an individual acting "alone" has the right to totally change the government, therefore, the right protected is personal, you would CLEARLY be wrong.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Look at your reply, then tell me, where does it address anything about "an individual acting ALONE?" You're ignoring the most relevant part of my post.
I assumed that by differentiating between individuals and the people as a body that it was assumed that individuals are acting alone.
If you'd said that an individual acting "alone" has the right to totally change the government, therefore, the right protected is personal, you would CLEARLY be wrong.
No, I am correct.
Individuals acting alone have the right to take the same actions to totally change the government as do groups of individuals.
They may not succeed without the consent of the people as a body , but they have the same rights as the people as a whole to try and change the government.
Now, are you going to answer my question?
Name me one action that the people as a body can undertake to totally change the government that individuals cannot take.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)So, have you thought up any way yet that the people as a body can exercise their right to totally change government that individuals cannot?
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Welcome to DU 
or 
Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)...ellisonz.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...welcome from me as well.
Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)...I'm having the last word
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)
be like that Glenn Vardy
(483 posts)Even in the original draft of the Second Amendment it's clear that the right protected was collective in nature.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
This shows that either:
1. The right protected was personal, but no person would be forced to participate in the exercise of his personal right "in person."
2. The right protected was collective, but no person would be forced to participate in the exercise of the collective right "in person."
Also, why don't ANY of these clauses which deal with personal responsibility/duty or exemptions ever use "the people" or even just "people?"
"..but people religiously scrupulous of bearing arms.."
Because "the people" or "people" isn't a suitable term to refer to individuals in legal documents.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts) discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...got it wrong because of the NRA lobbyists.
Callisto32
(2,997 posts)Impressive.
orangeagent27
(1 post)Hahahaha!
Lets hear facts, bowens! FACTS! This is a long time coming and I guarantee you our violent crime numbers are going to plummet. "Dancing on the graves of our murdered children?" Yeah, maybe your murdered children. Because you insist on being an unarmed victim.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)
Clames
(2,038 posts)...but it's good to see some common sense in action at our courtrooms. I wonder how many points that takes off the Brady score card?
kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)Clames
(2,038 posts)kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)How many have there been in the last few days? 200? More?
elleng
(130,912 posts)Rationing is the controlled distribution of scarce resources, goods, or services. Rationing controls the size of the ration, one's allotted portion of the resources being distributed on a particular day or at a particular time.
“People have the right to carry a gun for self-defense and don’t have to prove that there’s a special reason for them to seek the permit,” said his attorney Alan Gura, who has challenged handgun bans in the District of Columbia and Chicago. “We’re not against the idea of a permit process, but the licensing system has to acknowledge that there’s a right to bear arms.” . .
Many states require gun permits, but Illinois has a ban and six states, including Maryland, issue permits on a discretionary basis, Gura said. In most of those states, these challenges have not succeeded in U.S. District Courts, but they are being appealed, he said.
“Most states that choose to regulate the right to bear arms have licensing systems that are objective and straightforward,” Gura said. “That’s all that we want for Maryland.”
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)And in any event, I think it's accurate here: the current law had turned permits into a scarce resource by only approving them for the "right" people. There should be no reason why someone who meets the legal requirements and has no disqualifications shouldn't be entitled to a license without an official getting a veto. Particularly since there's no evidence that the other way actually WORKS. It would be the equivalent of trying to prevent car crashes by requiring someone to prove their need for a driver's license.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)From the article:
Jonathan Lowy, director of legal action project at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which assists states and cities in facing gun law challenges, expects the 4th Circuit to overturn the ruling.
“The Supreme Court has recognized the right to have guns in homes, but there is no right in public places,” Lowy said. “What Maryland does is reasonable. It allows law enforcement to make judgment based on substantial reasons why someone needs to carry a loaded gun in public. That’s not rationing and certainly not unconstitutional.”
... This suit is one of several federal suits the foundation is bringing across the nation, but it is the first time the foundation has had success before reaching the appeals level, according to foundation Founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.
Is it maybe actually the first time it has had success, period?
If the case were so easily argued, why have the NRA and its buddies been spending so much money on subverting the democratic process and getting their way by intimidating state legislatures and governors, instead of getting the definitive word from the courts?
pipoman
(16,038 posts)would that be I wonder, and what possible statistical evidence could there be to support such a position? It isn't as if Maryland is the only state in the union, or that Maryland can't access the the data of states which doesn't allow for the discrimination of bias to enter into the decision to allow one person to carry and another not simply based on some cop's whim..What other activity or license is so arbitrarily applied? Equal protection and all that..
The position of not issuing concealed carry in a particular state seems much more defensible than arbitrary guidelines left to individuals to define..
iverglas
(38,549 posts)Not that I can see. But it's always a good card to play, eh?
You ask what the implications for public safety are.
I would ask what the "right" to carry a firearm in public is.
Maybe somebody can direct us to the actual decision, so we can see where the judge found this right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benson_Everett_Legg
We do love us some Republicans in this place, don't we?
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Read the Second Amendment. And the Fourteenth.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)http://www.lawclerkaddict.com/district/dmd
Snork. And somebody sure struck the jackpot when they got him for this case.
Response to iverglas (Reply #59)
Post removed
pipoman
(16,038 posts)"The position of not issuing concealed carry in a particular state seems much more defensible than arbitrary guidelines left to individuals to define.."
Do you disagree that leaving any decision, other than those very clearly spelled out, up to any single law enforcement agent leaves a lot of room for corrupt application? Why would we want one person making such decisions?
Oh, and I haven't a clue who this legg person is..
See my post 65.
Well, he is the judge who wrote the decision this thread is about ...
petronius
(26,602 posts)…
The Maryland statute‘s failure lies in the overly broad means by which it seeks to advance this undoubtedly legitimate end. The requirement that a permit applicant demonstrate good and substantial reason to carry a handgun does not, for example, advance the interests of public safety by ensuring that guns are kept out of the hands of those adjudged most likely to misuse them, such as criminals or the mentally ill. It does not ban handguns from places where the possibility of mayhem is most acute, such as schools, churches, government buildings, protest gatherings, or establishments that serve alcohol. It does not attempt to reduce accidents, as would a requirement that all permit applicants complete a safety course. It does not even, as some other States laws do, limit the carrying of handguns to persons deemed suitable by denying a permit to anyone whose conduct indicates that he or she is potentially a danger to the public if entrusted with a handgun.
Rather, the regulation at issue is a rationing system. It aims, as Defendants concede, simply to reduce the total number of firearms carried outside of the home by limiting the privilege to those who can demonstrate good reason beyond a general desire for self-defense. In support of this limitation, Defendants list numerous reasons why handguns pose a threat to public safety in general and why curbing their proliferation is desirable. For example, they argue that an assailant may wrest a handgun away from its owner, and cite evidence that this possibility imperils even trained police officers. They note that when a police officer is engaged in a confrontation with a criminal, the presence of an armed civilian can divert the officer‘s attention.
…
These arguments prove too much. While each possibility presents an unquestionable threat to public safety, the challenged regulation does no more to combat them than would a law indiscriminately limiting the issuance of a permit to every tenth applicant. The solution, then, is not tailored to the problem it is intended to solve.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)There is a general prohibition on carrying firearms in public, for the very good reasons the state argued.
There are exceptions permitted where individuals can show an interest that outweighs the public interest in their own case.
So? That might be an impermissible way of achieving the end. (Are lotteries for fishing licences, e.g., that are limited in number to protect fish stocks, impermisssible?) How does that mean that another method is impermissible?
Reminds me of Canada ...
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-98-207/latest/sor-98-207.html
Protection of Life
2. For the purpose of section 20 of the Act, the circumstances in which an individual needs restricted firearms or prohibited handguns to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals are where
(a) the life of that individual, or other individuals, is in imminent danger from one or more other individuals;
(b) police protection is not sufficient in the circumstances; and
(c) the possession of a restricted firearm or prohibited handgun can reasonably be justified for protecting the individual or other individuals from death or grievous bodily harm.
Lawful Profession or Occupation
3. For the purpose of section 20 of the Act, the circumstances in which an individual needs restricted firearms or prohibited handguns for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation are where
(a) the individual’s principal activity is the handling, transportation or protection of cash, negotiable instruments or other goods of substantial value, and firearms are required for the purpose of protecting his or her life or the lives of other individuals in the course of that handling, transportation or protection activity;
(b) the individual is working in a remote wilderness area and firearms are required for the protection of the life of that individual or of other individuals from wild animals; or
(c) the individual is engaged in the occupation of trapping in a province and is licensed or authorized and trained as required by the laws of the province.
And of course there are training requirements.
Maybe Maryland just needs to spell it all out better to satisfy Hizonner. It strikes me that it wouldn't be that difficult to do.
petronius
(26,602 posts)carrying firearms in public"; that the 2nd Amendment extends outside the home. So it isn't 'generally prohibited with possible exceptions', it's 'generally allowed with permissible restrictions.' However, those restrictions have to be specifically focused on a particular need - just limiting a behavior to reduce the possibility of problems isn't enough. According to Judge Legg, anyway:
At bottom, this case rests on a simple proposition: If the Government wishes to burden a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it may do so provided that it can show a satisfactory justification and a sufficiently adapted method. The showing, however, is always the Government‘s to make. A citizen may not be required to offer a good and substantial reason why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)a general prohibition with possible exceptions.
If the judge had meant that the second amendment prohibited controls on the carrying of weapons outside the home, one would have expected him to just say that. But what he said was:
He essentially contradicts himself:
Check.
And then:
Once the state has shown justification for the limitation, which he plainly acknowledged that it is open to it to do, then the individual does have to show why their interests override the public interests in issue.
If the existence of the right were all the reason needed, then why bother talking about justification for limiting the exercise of rights? There could never be any.
Unfortunately I have to beg off. I have a turkey to get into the oven, which is going to involve motivating another party, since it's not the easiest thing to do from a wheelchair. And after falling over and not being able to get up yesterday (the first time in almost a month, though), I'm not eager to do it again with a turkey ...
petronius
(26,602 posts)The judge concluded that 2A extends outside the home, therefore citizens have the right to carry in public, and therefore there can't be a general prohibition.
Of course, no right is absolute, and the state is free to impose reasonable limits and controls.
However, those limits must be targeted to a specific compelling interest - and an interest in reducing the exercise of a right doesn't count. (The "undoubtedly legitimate end" is public safety, not the reduction of public carrying.) IOW, the state can't say "this is prohibited unless you have a good reason", all the state can say is "this is always permitted except with these specific limits for which we've articulated a compelling reason."
So it's not contradictory, and he's not saying 2A forbids controls on carrying. What he is saying is that the existence of the right puts the onus on the state to justify the restrictions, and not on the citizen to justify his need.
He does hint at restrictions that might be reasonable - for example a ban on CCW, or a training requirement - as long as they address a specific need.
Once the state has shown justification for the limitation, which he plainly acknowledged that it is open to it to do, then the individual does have to show why their interests override the public interests in issue.
True, but that's not the issue here: once the state has imposed valid limits, a citizen wouldn't really have any reason to expect an exception, except by showing that the restriction was unreasonable.
Best of luck with the turkey and the leg - I sure hope it's healing up nicely...
Kennah
(14,266 posts)