Liberal Courts Still Gunning Against Second Amendment Rights

This is a discussion on Liberal Courts Still Gunning Against Second Amendment Rights within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Liberal Courts Still Gunning Against Second Amendment Rights - Forbes ** Does the Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense extend outside the doorway ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: Liberal Courts Still Gunning Against Second Amendment Rights

  1. #1
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036

    Thumbs down Liberal Courts Still Gunning Against Second Amendment Rights



    Liberal Courts Still Gunning Against Second Amendment Rights - Forbes

    **
    Does the Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense extend outside the doorway of our homes? Well, no — at least not according to rulings of judges in California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Virginia. Although 40 states currently mandate that permits shall be granted to allow all competent, law-abiding adults who seek them to carry concealed loaded firearms, California, Illinois and Maryland deny permits to all but those who can show they face specific dangers.


    Moreover, an Oct. 4 ruling by the Federal U.S. Court of Appeals found the Washington, D.C., ban on even owning “assault weapons” and large-capacity magazines doesn’t violate constitutional rights of residents living in the nation’s capital. The 2-1 judge decision also upheld registration requirements for handguns put in place after a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2008 ended the city’s near total ban on firearms, and ordered a lower court to review other aspects of their gun control law, such as limits on multiple purchases as well.


    Judge Douglas Ginsburg defended the ruling, writing, “The District has carried its burden of showing a substantial relationship between the prohibition of both semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than 10 rounds, and the objectives of protecting police officers and controlling crime.” Judge Brett Kavanaugh dissented, stating that he would have thrown out the ban on assault weapons and the registration requirements. He wrote: “This case concerns semi-automatic rifles. It would strain logic and common sense to conclude that the Second Amendment protects semi-automatic handguns but does not protect semi-automatic rifles.”

    SNIP
    **
    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

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array goldshellback's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    OKC; by way of St. Mayberry, GA
    Posts
    4,750
    Wadda mean 'still.....'? They never stopped/quit.
    "Just getting a concealed carry permit means you haven't commited a crime yet. CCP holders commit crimes." Daniel Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, quoted on Fox & Friends, 8 Jul, 2008

    (Sometimes) "a fight avioded is a fight won." ... claude clay

  4. #3
    Ex Member Array Doodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tomball TX
    Posts
    948
    fascists

  5. #4
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,573
    Quote Originally Posted by Doodle View Post
    fascists
    Please-- if you want to call people names at least find out what the word you are using really means.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,633
    Since the 40's- 60's , they've been at it. That's why it all needs to be challenged and not allowed to stand .... and be the judgment of the land. They aren't going to give up, they are 'brain dead'.
    I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
    Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

  7. #6
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Please-- if you want to call people names at least find out what the word you are using really means.
    I believe he used the word correctly sir.

    Fascist (epithet)From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

    The word fascist is sometimes used to denigrate people, institutions, or groups that would not describe themselves as ideologically fascist, and that may not fall within the formal definition of the word.

    The Fascist party that developed in Italy in the 1920s rigidly enforced conservative values and behavior norms during the Mussolini regime. As a political epithet, fascist was subsequently used in an anti-authoritarian sense to emphasize the common ideology of governmental suppression of individual freedom, as shared by other groups on the extreme right. Eventually members of those right wing groups, and other sympathizers, began to broaden the use of fascist and confuse the meaning by applying the term to groups on the far left that strongly advocate behavior that promotes respect for those who deviate from perceived norms and/or advocate participation in the development of opportunities for oppressed people.
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    Although that ruling by the federal appeals court is outside the intent of the 2nd Amendment; it's within the guidlines of the SCOTUS ruling. Contrary to what many believe; the SCOTUS ruling was not a ringing endorsement of our 2nd Amendment rights.

  9. #8
    Member Array scott625's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    171

    Case?

    Does anybody know what case this is referring to?

    To resolve any lingering doubt, the National Rifle Association is asking our nation’s highest court to take this issue up in the fall and “correct the widespread misapprehension that the 2nd Amendment’s scope does not extend beyond the home.” Stephen Halbrook, a NRA attorney, observes that this is necessary because “some judges have buried their heads in the sand and have refused to go one step further.” Even some conservative judges have admitted wariness about second-guessing such constitutional interpretations. As Judge J. Wilkinson who sits on the 4th Circuit Court wrote in March, “This is serious business. We do not wish to be even minutely responsible for some unspeakably tragic act of mayhem because in the peace of our judicial chambers we miscalculated as to Second Amendment rights.”

  10. #9
    Distinguished Member Array GunGeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,249
    The real criminal behavior is the same Supreme Court judges ruling since the 40's. Talk about a need for term limits. Those people need to get out of their peaceful judicial chambers and walk around in the inner cities.

  11. #10
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,573
    Quote Originally Posted by Stubborn View Post
    I believe he used the word correctly sir.
    Stubborn, this from what you quoted makes zero sense: "As a political epithet, fascist was subsequently used in an anti-authoritarian sense to emphasize the common ideology of governmental suppression of individual freedom, as shared by other groups on the extreme right."

    This part does make sense, "The word fascist is sometimes used to denigrate people, institutions, or groups that would not describe themselves as ideologically fascist, and that may not fall within the formal definition of the word," and demonstrates the misuse of the word as an obscene epithet without regard to the true meaning of the word-- as I suggested.

    Anyway, if we pursued this we'd go way off topic; so I've said what I needed to say. We do not live in a totalitarian society, fascistic or otherwise. I've been posting here for years and there has been no knock on the door and I don't expect one.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  12. #11
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Stubborn, this from what you quoted makes zero sense: "As a political epithet, fascist was subsequently used in an anti-authoritarian sense to emphasize the common ideology of governmental suppression of individual freedom, as shared by other groups on the extreme right."

    This part does make sense, "The word fascist is sometimes used to denigrate people, institutions, or groups that would not describe themselves as ideologically fascist, and that may not fall within the formal definition of the word," and demonstrates the misuse of the word as an obscene epithet without regard to the true meaning of the word-- as I suggested.

    Anyway, if we pursued this we'd go way off topic; so I've said what I needed to say. We do not live in a totalitarian society, fascistic or otherwise. I've been posting here for years and there has been no knock on the door and I don't expect one.
    Sorry, if it makes no sense to you. you'll have to take that up with Wikipedia, it's their definition not mine. It appears "Doodle" did not use the word in keeping with the "classical" definition, however it was used in keeping with the more contemporary definition.

    Just because there has not been a knock at the door yet, does not mean there won't be a knock in the future.
    You and I may not see it in our lifetime, but I am certain our childrens generation will see it. When there is a knock at the door to collect/confiscate all firearms.
    This of course probably doesn't concern you, as you strike me as the type that would peacefully surrender yours.

    As you and I argued in another thread, you trust the government, I don't.
    Thats my final word on this matter. Good day.
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  13. #12
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Quote Originally Posted by scott625 View Post
    Does anybody know what case this is referring to?

    To resolve any lingering doubt, the National Rifle Association is asking our nation’s highest court to take this issue up in the fall and “correct the widespread misapprehension that the 2nd Amendment’s scope does not extend beyond the home.” Stephen Halbrook, a NRA attorney, observes that this is necessary because “some judges have buried their heads in the sand and have refused to go one step further.” Even some conservative judges have admitted wariness about second-guessing such constitutional interpretations. As Judge J. Wilkinson who sits on the 4th Circuit Court wrote in March, “This is serious business. We do not wish to be even minutely responsible for some unspeakably tragic act of mayhem because in the peace of our judicial chambers we miscalculated as to Second Amendment rights.”
    Not sure what you are quoting. However, I suspect it is about Sean Masciandaro, Petitioner v. United States of America

    See thread at "Obama Administration -- Less protection for gun rights" for the Administration's opposition to the Writ of Certiorari.

    If you provide the link to your quote, I'll do some research.
    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

  14. #13
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,573
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig 210 View Post
    Although that ruling by the federal appeals court is outside the intent of the 2nd Amendment; it's within the guidlines of the SCOTUS ruling. Contrary to what many believe; the SCOTUS ruling was not a ringing endorsement of our 2nd Amendment rights.
    Spot on. In fact, I personally fear that we will not ever see SCOTUS endorse a right to carry. They had the opportunity and chose to side step that issue. That however means the other two branches are still free to push policies which promote carry. The reciprocity bills do just that.

    If either of the two reciprocity bills managed to get passed and signed, the states would no longer be able to prohibit carriage of license holders from other states. The logical end would be that they would have to issue to their own residents eventually, and all these annoying cases like the one Dave H posted about would go away.

    OF course we'd probably have a few states try to circumvent a national reciprocity bill by putting limits on what may be carried in their state --but cross that bridge when we get to it.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array Gene83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    2,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Spot on. In fact, I personally fear that we will not ever see SCOTUS endorse a right to carry. They had the opportunity and chose to side step that issue. That however means the other two branches are still free to push policies which promote carry. The reciprocity bills do just that.

    If either of the two reciprocity bills managed to get passed and signed, the states would no longer be able to prohibit carriage of license holders from other states. The logical end would be that they would have to issue to their own residents eventually, and all these annoying cases like the one Dave H posted about would go away.

    OF course we'd probably have a few states try to circumvent a national reciprocity bill by putting limits on what may be carried in their state --but cross that bridge when we get to it.
    The arguments already being made somewhere although I can't recall where. If reciprocity passes that means that people who would not meet the qualifications for a carry permit in our fine state could go to a state with lesser restrictions and obtain a permit. We would be forced to honor that permit. Say "No" to a national reciprocity program.

    I don't remember where I saw that message...maybe on one of those liberal MSNBC programs that I watch as an antidote for Fox News.
    "The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come." ~ Confucius

  16. #15
    mel
    mel is offline
    Member Array mel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    254
    Idiots would be a good word.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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
  •  

Search tags for this page

commentary: liberal courts still gunning against second amendment rights
,
gunning against meaning
,

if the courts members shift to a liberal side will second amendment be challenged

,
leosa and states not honoring it
Click on a term to search for related topics.