Supreme Court poised to Expand 2nd Amendment Gun rights

[cardsrock15]

Listened to the Supreme Court arguments this morning , Supreme Court is probably going to strike down New Yorks restrictive gun permitting process.

“All these people with illegal guns: They’re on the subway, walking around the streets, but ordinary, hard-working, law-abiding people, no,” Alito told the Empire State’s solicitor general. “They can’t be armed.”

No other constitutional right requires a state issued permit for the citizen and neither should carrying a weapon as guaranteed in the second amendment, "It is a second class right"

 

[Toots_mcgee]

Constitution does not guarantee individuals right to weapons. Scalia was a judicial activist who changed law.

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice McReynolds, held: The National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act, held:

1. Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506,[1]and Narcotic Act cases. P. 307 U. S. 177.
2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178.

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

 

[cardsrock15]

Constitution does not guarantee individuals right to weapons. Scalia was a judicial activist who changed law.

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice McReynolds, held: The National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act, held:

1. Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506,[1]and Narcotic Act cases. P. 307 U. S. 177.
2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178.

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Is there some part of " The rights of the PEOPLE to keep and and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED " that you can't understand??

because courts made wrong decisions in the past doesn't mean current justices shouldn't rule correctly to the letter of the constitution

 

[Toots_mcgee]

Funny how you don’t quote the militia part

 

[MGHS]

Militia is a group of any civilians....not a government entity.

You also didn't point out that it's a pretty easy interpretation.

A well regulated Militia,(Comma) -- a group of Civilians that organize ....not gov. sanctioned troops, but Civilians with their own weapons---.

being necessary to the security of a Free state,(Comma)--- Civilians who are armed to protect liberty and freedom to maintain a free state outside the oppressive control of Big Gov. ---

the right of the people to keep and bear arms,(Comma)---clearly Civilians aka the people, not federal/state troops, these civilians have the right to keep and have weapons and arms of any type to protect Liberty/Freedom---

shall not be infringed.(Period)----violate, breach or break.---

It's not complicated....Civilians can be armed the gov. can't stop them and the people can if so warranted form a Militia to stand against a dictatorial and tyrannical government. You know like we did against the King and England.

The mental gymnastics that the Leftist and powerful go through to disarm a country to gain 100% Autocratic control is disgusting.

 

[cardsrock15]

Funny how you don’t quote the militia part

I dont need to,,,,,,,,,citizens have the right to form a militia to protect their state or community for any reason they see fit. It doesnt say anywhere in the second amendment that the people MUST be a part of an active militia to own and carry weapons does it.

Justice Roberts even seems to be siding with the gun owners of New York

At oral arguments before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, the state’s lawyer was trying to convince the justices that carrying a gun in a densely populated area presents a greater danger than toting the weapon in a rural area.






Roberts asked how pressing the need for a gun for self-defense was in the countryside, when the risks of violence in a city are greater.

“How many muggings take place in the forest?” he asked New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood.

 

[3Rfan]

Militia is a group of any civilians....not a government entity.

You also didn't point out that it's a pretty easy interpretation.

A well regulated Militia,(Comma) -- a group of Civilians that organize ....not gov. sanctioned troops, but Civilians with their own weapons---.

being necessary to the security of a Free state,(Comma)--- Civilians who are armed to protect liberty and freedom to maintain a free state outside the oppressive control of Big Gov. ---

the right of the people to keep and bear arms,(Comma)---clearly Civilians aka the people, not federal/state troops, these civilians have the right to keep and have weapons and arms of any type to protect Liberty/Freedom---

shall not be infringed.(Period)----violate, breach or break.---

It's not complicated....Civilians can be armed the gov. can't stop them and the people can if so warranted form a Militia to stand against a dictatorial and tyrannical government. You know like we did against the King and England.

The mental gymnastics that the Leftist and powerful go through to disarm a country to gain 100% Autocratic control is disgusting.

So you think every Tom,Dick and Harry that carries a gun these days is a group/militia?

 

[MGHS]

So you think every Tom,Dick and Harry that carries a gun these days is a group/militia?

I'm really beginning to doubt how much you actually understand about basic Civics. Because the 2nd amendment clearly breaks it down.........a militia is not a organized group....it is not a Federally/State funded organization. It is any Group of people who can at anytime Band together on a whim with the Weapons they have the right to bear/own/posses and the gov. cannot infringe or hider that right to own,bear or posses so they can come together to defend liberty and bring security to a free state. Hence you don't have to be part of a Organized Gov. sanctioned and controlled entity.... you are entitled as a basic human right to own arms...Aka. the tools necessary to stand against anything that threatens the security of the state.

It clearly says the right of the people to keep and bear arms AKA every TOM/DICK& Harry who are the people, shall not be infringed!! That is so they Can if necessary form a Citizen Militia at the time of their choosing ...to defend the States Security.

If the Founding Fathers didn't want the average TOM/DICK & Harry to have arms they wouldn't of used the word the PEOPLE aka Citizens that walk the streets and do the living and dying in everyday communities, they specifically was addressing that they should be well armed to form a Militia when they see fit. If that was not what was wanted They would of been specific about only Gov. minions aka.. Professional Soldiers and POLICE having arms. And NOT INFRINGED is pretty dang straight forward as well.

 

[cardsrock15]

So you think every Tom,Dick and Harry that carries a gun these days is a group/militia?

www.missourimilitia.com everyone is welcome to join and help out when needed

 

[MGHS]

Nice.....

 

[Cheetah King]

Is there some part of " The rights of the PEOPLE to keep and and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED " that you can't understand??

because courts made wrong decisions in the past doesn't mean current justices shouldn't rule correctly to the letter of the constitution

Yeah like the one millionth time the Bill of Rights exist to limit the power of the Federal government NOT to grant individuals rights they already have.

 

[MGHS]

I agree 100% the Feds don't grant those rights...morally those rights are inalienable to everyone in a philosophical manner. But In truth and logically the ruling bodies aka.. the gov. grant and protect those rights. We don't live in a vacuum without a System that protects those rights granted to us by the Grace of the Creator and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights spell it out least we forget or they get taken away. That is why we have a written document stating so.

 

[3Rfan]

I agree 100% the Feds don't grant those rights...morally those rights are inalienable to everyone in a philosophical manner. But In truth and logically the ruling bodies aka.. the gov. grant and protect those rights. We don't live in a vacuum without a System that protects those rights granted to us by the Grace of the Creator and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights spell it out least we forget or they get taken away. That is why we have a written document stating so.

So now God is all in on our weaponry rights?

 

[MGHS]

I think the Creator would want a person to protect him/her self and loved ones from evil doers and oppressors......or do you disagree with that?

 

[3Rfan]

You are way over the top on this one.

 

[MGHS]

Not answering the question I see....hmmm

 

[3Rfan]

Not answering the question I see....hmmm

I don't claim to know what the creator would have to say about that and you shouldn't either?

 

[Toots_mcgee]

 

[Arcola]

View embedded media

You realize separation of church and state was created to protect religious freedom from the state. Not the. Other way around.

 

[Toots_mcgee]

You realize separation of church and state was created to protect religious freedom from the state. Not the. Other way around.

That includes my freedom from your religion

 

[MGHS]

I agree with you.....nobody is refuting that either. Not sure what your point is everyone knows we have no state mandated Religion? The Constitution and Bill of Rights spell out inalienable rights.....of American Citizens. I with forethought used the Term Creator....NOT GOD......for a reason. You are free to interpret the Creator as Evolution, God, Aliens, Allah, or what ever you want. But we still have inalienable rights and the Right to Self Defense and to protect ourselves is one of them...that was my point and for Some reason 3Rfan as derived a different view point from what ever religion he follows(Quaker?) and the Constitution/Bill of Rights.

 

[3Rfan]

I agree with you.....nobody is refuting that either. Not sure what your point is everyone knows we have no state mandated Religion? The Constitution and Bill of Rights spell out inalienable rights.....of American Citizens. I with forethought used the Term Creator....NOT GOD......for a reason. You are free to interpret the Creator as Evolution, God, Aliens, Allah, or what ever you want. But we still have inalienable rights and the Right to Self Defense and to protect ourselves is one of them...that was my point and for Some reason 3Rfan as derived a different view point from what ever religion he follows(Quaker?) and the Constitution/Bill of Rights.

You have lost your mind. I'd bet there is NO ONE on this board that took your "creator" comment as being evolution or aliens, and probably no one that thought you were talking about Allah. Quaker???

 

[3Rfan]

I agree with you.....nobody is refuting that either. Not sure what your point is everyone knows we have no state mandated Religion? The Constitution and Bill of Rights spell out inalienable rights.....of American Citizens. I with forethought used the Term Creator....NOT GOD......for a reason. You are free to interpret the Creator as Evolution, God, Aliens, Allah, or what ever you want. But we still have inalienable rights and the Right to Self Defense and to protect ourselves is one of them...that was my point and for Some reason 3Rfan as derived a different view point from what ever religion he follows(Quaker?) and the Constitution/Bill of Rights.

Maybe you agree with Trump's buddy Mike Flynn that we should only have one religion in the U.S.

 

[MGHS]

You have lost your mind. I'd bet there is NO ONE on this board that took your "creator" comment as being evolution or aliens, and probably no one that thought you were talking about Allah. Quaker???

Well that is on you or them.....Not on me. I get it you look at everything from a self biased view point, hence you go right to God from the Christian religion. I'm not a big Believer in a book full of mythic stories.....but I do believe something created us because for Random events to line up out of chaos is to come to this is a bit of a stretch.

 

[MGHS]

Maybe you agree with Trump's buddy Mike Flynn that we should only have one religion in the U.S.

Nope.....

 

[3Rfan]

Nope.....

I guess not since you apparently don't believe in any religion at all.

Nope.....

At least I got a response from you that was less than a thousand words. 😊

 

[MGHS]

I have a love hate of religion. Nothing tries to stamp down individual freedom more than religion, not to mention all the effort from many religions to control and sway the masses. But with that said religion is also the foundation of a lot of our moral codes and Norms.