SCOTUS previously said gun carry is a right?

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 ...

Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: SCOTUS previously said gun carry is a right?

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,122

    SCOTUS previously said gun carry is a right?

    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,'..."

    I found an online copy HERE.

    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?
    Attached Images
    • File Type: jpg 1.jpg (35.8 KB, 16 views)
    • File Type: jpg 2.jpg (53.3 KB, 12 views)
    • File Type: jpg 3.jpg (50.9 KB, 11 views)
    • File Type: jpg 4.jpg (49.9 KB, 16 views)
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,075
    Haven't heard of this before. It's ridiculous that these cases even have to be brought up at all. The 2A is very simple and straight-forward.

  4. #3
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)
    478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

    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.

    More cases to come.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  5. #4
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,573
    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.

  6. #5
    Senior Member Array press1280's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    750
    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002 View Post
    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,'..."

    I found an online copy HERE.

    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

  7. #6
    Ex Member Array hamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    new york
    Posts
    1,291
    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.

  8. #7
    Ex Member Array F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Rocky Mountain High in Colorado
    Posts
    1,706
    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.

  9. #8
    Senior Member Array press1280's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    750
    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

  10. #9
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Quote Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
    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."

    Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  11. #10
    Senior Member Array press1280's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    750
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveH View Post
    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

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array BugDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast of Florida
    Posts
    9,331
    Quote Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
    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.
    Know Guns, Know Safety, Know Peace.
    No Guns, No Safety, No Peace.


    Guns are like sex and air...its no big deal until YOU can't get any.

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,122
    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 ::
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. SCOTUS ruling / NJ
    By rmilchman in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: July 1st, 2010, 12:52 PM
  2. Scotus ?
    By jfl in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: June 23rd, 2010, 11:49 AM
  3. Previously registered?
    By Hardcorp in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: May 24th, 2009, 09:07 PM
  4. What do we do if SCOTUS votes against us?!
    By Diesel 007 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: November 24th, 2007, 03:26 PM

Search tags for this page

scotus right to carry

Click on a term to search for related topics.