This is a discussion on SCOTUS previously said gun carry is a right? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; In the March 2010 issue of the NRA's American Rifleman, on page 18, bottom of middle column, the Executive Director of the NRA-ILA Chris Cox ...
In the March 2010 issue of the NRA's American Rifleman, on page 18, bottom of middle column, the Executive Director of the NRA-ILA Chris Cox states, "... Despite anti-gun groups' please to the contrary, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that the Second Amendment 'guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,'..."
Did I miss something? SCOTUS says we have the right to possess and carry?
Seems like, if this is accurate, we have won the grand prize. Any other challenge in SCOTUS is frivolous. So why haven't Chicago et al rolled over and complied?
Anybody know which decision this quoted text is from?
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment s, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”16
What NRA ILA is glossing over is that because of the narrow way Heller was drawn it only addresses possession and carry of weapons in your home -- not on the street, etc.
Quote The Supremes: "The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” Yet, all of the subordinate courts routinely uphold restrictions on possession in various Federal facilities and restrictions on type. It is clear that the court has yet to grapple with what "infringed" really means.
Then too, The Supremes followed the above comment with--- "As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution." Uh, bottom line, we don't know what they are trying to tell us and it isn't at all clear that they have a coherent consistent opinion.
I have to wonder, if a right is not granted by the Constitution, then what authority short of a deity are we to turn to for protection of that right? I feel certain The Supremes would not mean for us to use our own individual strength--- see my other posts on the Sedition laws.
Heller, as I predicted when SD and I were still fighting over every word, has accomplished almost nothing, and means almost nothing. It was an empty victory. Want proof, try carrying in DC or on Federal Property, or on Amtrack.
In the March 2010 issue of the NRA's American Rifleman, on page 18, bottom of middle column, the Executive Director of the NRA-ILA Chris Cox states, "... Despite anti-gun groups' please to the contrary, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that the Second Amendment 'guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,'..."
Did I miss something? SCOTUS says we have the right to possess and carry?
Seems like, if this is accurate, we have won the grand prize. Any other challenge in SCOTUS is frivolous. So why haven't Chicago et al rolled over and complied?
Anybody know which decision this quoted text is from?
Well, Chicago hasn't rolled over because they don't care about wasting the taxpayer's money for a futile case.
Heller didn't specifically rule on carrying outside the home(although the quote will no doubt be in the briefs of future 2A cases). It'll come soon though.
"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."
Nunn v. State GA 1848
What NRA ILA is glossing over is that because of the narrow way Heller was drawn it only addresses possession and carry of weapons in your home -- not on the street, etc
.
I believe this is accurate. Somewhere, in the decision itself, or in footnotes to it, it listed a number of types of regulations the decision was NOT outlawing. It said those would be settled as to constitutionality if this were felt to be an issue by other cases. One of this number was CCW - it may though have just said restriction of guns from certain public buildings or "sensitive" areas was was not in question and not being overruled by Heller. Meaning CCW itself in terms of Heller would be confusing as to whether or not outlawing it would be seen as unconstitutional.
I believe the reference exists in the body of what Scalia wrote.
I have a whole list of SCOTUS rulings that touch on the second amendment even though the second amendment was not the focus of the case. Unfortunately that list is on the home computer and i am not exactly home right now.
From Dred Scott v. Sanford(1857) when referring to the privleges and immunities of US citizens:
"It would give to persons of the negro race, ...the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
Obviously "wherever they went implies" more than just in the home.
"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."
Nunn v. State GA 1848
From Dred Scott v. Sanford(1857) when referring to the privleges and immunities of US citizens:
"It would give to persons of the negro race, ...the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
Obviously "wherever they went implies" more than just in the home.
I'm not sure I ever quote "Dred Scott" in a debate with an anti (oral or written) given its holding that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. However, it is an interesting insight into the Judicial view of the "privileges and immunities of citizens" e.g., "to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
I'm not sure I ever quote "Dred Scott" in a debate with an anti (oral or written) given its holding that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. However, it is an interesting insight into the Judicial view of the "privileges and immunities of citizens" e.g., "to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
But it gives an insight into what SCOTUS thought of the 2A around the time of the 14th Amendment. It certainly undercuts the "2A only means you can have a gun in the home" crap that you know they'll push for.
"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."
Nunn v. State GA 1848
From Dred Scott v. Sanford(1857) when referring to the privleges and immunities of US citizens:
"It would give to persons of the negro race, ...the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
Obviously "wherever they went implies" more than just in the home.
Nice info, thanks!!! I have copied it to my word document of facts and figures for battling misinformation.
Here's what I got back from an inquiry to NRA-ILA:
Thank you for contacting NRA-ILA.
He was referring to the opinion in Heller case it states:
"we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."
The Heller case only applied to the Federal government and D.C. as a federal enclave. The McDonald case will determine whether the second amendment will be incorporated to state and local governments.
Please let us know if you have further questions or concerns.
Best regards,
Miranda Bond
NRA-ILA Grassroots Division NRA-ILA ::
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by paramedic70002
