mcp1810

Lets see here... Seems to me we are all over the board here. For the OP, how does the other party define "bear"?

Also, IIRC the U.S. Constitution when it was written, put restrictions on the federal government. State governments are restricted by their own respective Constitutions. So the big question in my mind is how are the various sections of U.S. code that may be in conflict with Heller going to be resolved? Heller is pretty much irrelevant to me here outside Houston, but it could be a very big deal to friends of mine that live on Fort Hood.

So really, for the vast majority of us, until SCOTUS incorporates 2A against the states, it really isn't relevant! Except when we go to the post office.

__________________
Waiting on the research and verification.......

oneshot

The writers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights obviously bore arms. They were engaged in inventing federal government and wanted to make sure this new entity couldn't cancel any pre-existing right. After the 14th was passed, SCOTUS engaged in "incorporating" certain parts of the Bill of Rights in the 14th, meaning states, commonwealths, counties, cities, or other local governments could not violate the item just as the federal government was already prevented from doing so.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pro2A
Yes, but is that constitutional?

As of right now, the answer to your question is "yes" for those states or commonwealths whose own constitutions do not contain an analogue of 2A because 2A has not been so incorporated. But I expect SCOTUS case 08-1521 McDonald v Chicago to change this. Once 2A is incorporated, eventually restrictions against bearing arms outside your property will be invalidated.

The best book I've read on the subject, if you want to know a lot more, is "That Every Man Be Armed" by Stephen P Halbrook, probably available in your local library.
__________________
"If you got to shoot, shoot! Don't talk!" -Tuco Ramirez-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good God Almighty,

Hail to these two posts,

Words mean something, especially when its pertaining to the LAW.

Have you ever read the fine print on any document.



"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." Ted Nugent

__________________
Washington didn’t use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!
NRA all the way

Smith&Wesson M&P9c Kel Tec P11
Dan Wesson 15-2VH

ccw9mm

Ditto. This is an exceptional book with great coverage of the material. Halbrook is well-versed and knows his research. It's absolutely must-read for anyone who cares about the 2A.

<edit>

Halbrook has another exceptional book, as well. The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms, by Stephen Halbrook, 2008, The Independent Institute.

There are a number of other books and materials listed in this thread, too: U.S. Constitution 101.

__________________
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
Thoughts: Justifiable self defense.
Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
Deal with evil through strength. Affirm the good in Man through trust.
NRA. GOA. OFF.

wjh2657

We keep screaming that we don't want SCOTUS or State court decisions to detract from the simple language of the USC. Well let us follow that:

All land owning free (not everybody is free by the USC) white men may bear arms.

And that was the intention of our forefathers when they wrote the Constitution.

So I guess it does say that you can carry, if you are white and own land (not a renter, they are indentured servants or sharecroppers.)

I am white and I own my own home, so I guess the 2d A takes care of me. Using this logic, there are a lot of people on this forum who should leave now and shut up because it was never intended, by the forefathers, for you to carry guns or mix with us quality, landowners .

All of these other "trash laws and decisions" came about because it was realized that the Constitution as written (bare bones) did not cover most of the population.

I am a Constitutionalist but I do realize that going to the original words can cause a lot of trouble.

This is akin to "Let's get back to the Ten Commandments"movement, we forget they were given to the Hebrews and to the Hebrews alone, as expressed in GOD's own words. We also forget that it became necessary to expand the ten into 613 commandments through Leviticus and Deuteronomy, because GOD realized that the poor Hebrews couldn't figure out how to make the first ten work!

Murder or Kill in the Ten Commandments means just that, you can't kill anybody, for any reason! That was later explained in the 613 (Mitsvoh) commandments as having mitigations. If we go to the original wording in the original Ten Commandments, we shut all of the gun forums down, bring the boys home from overseas and melt our guns down.

Basing 2dA rights on the simplistic wording in the original Constitution, binding only on the Federal Government, (actually at the time of writing it was binding only on the Congress!) is smoke in the air, the substance of it is hidden in the context of where it was written, when it was written, for who it was written and by whom it was written.

I am and will remain a staunch supporter of the Individual RTKBA, but I will also remain realistic and knowledgable of the context of where those rights spring from and who controls them (or whether anybody should control them!)

__________________
" A man has got to know his limitations!"
Inspector Harry Callihan, SFPD

2edgesword

Your argument ignors the essence of the spirit of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

A fundamental principle of the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights is the recognition and protection of individual rights and freedoms. The thrust of these documents is the maximizing of those rights and freedoms. The amendments to the Constitution to include women, African-Americans and non-landowners coincides with that fundamental principle. The twisted interpretations of these documents that seek to oppress and restrict these rights and freedoms are fundamentally contrary to the values and principles expressed in the DOC and BOR.

__________________
Martial Blade Concepts, Jiu-Jitsu & Eskrima NRA, GOA, NYSRPA, LIF

BAC

Heller means nothing to any of us living outside the District of Columbia, unless we live on federally owned property (property of the United States of America, Inc.). Let's not forget what the case was about, what it did, what it didn't do, and its limitations.

• US Constitution clearly describes the inferior authority of the District.
• D.C., which is federal property, was found to have laws in conflict with higher federal laws.
• Supreme Court confirmed a lower court's opinion that D.C. laws were unjust and unconstitutional.
• Nothing changes at all in the wake of the Heller ruling.
• Congress was called upon to create law to rectify the situation, as is their constitutionally-described duty, since the Supreme Court has no power to do so on its own.

2edgesword, the "spirit" of the US Constitution will not save you in court if you use it in your defense. We should consider why this is, and learn the lesson carefully. We are a nation of laws, not the opinions or whims of men.


-B

__________________
RIP, Jeff Dorr: 1964 - July 17, 2009. You will be missed.


Defensive Carry Search Tips


Step 1 - Choose a subforum on right side under "Search in Forum(s)"
Step 2 - Type general topic of interest in "Search by Keyword" textbox.
Step 3 - Read results and refine/repeat as necessary.

wjh2657

Without meaning to you have have acceeded to my point. It was necessary to amend the Constitution to include those that the BOR forgot. The fundamental principal alluded to in the BOR did not recognize individuals of all callings and races. We later (not very much later though) amended the principals expressed to include everybody. My point was that the original 10 Amendments later had to be expressed in other terms to prove effective. We to many times give our forefathers Saintly status. The truth is (with some notable exceptions) they were for the most part landed aristocracy and gentry who did not even think about the rights of all. The BOR is a magnificent work, but it wasn't originally supported by the majority of the signers of the Constitution. Only a vigorous fight by a small minority of people (Jefferson, Franklin and Washington were leaders) got it accepted as part of the constitution and then it had to be separate amendments. To project that the founders intended the second amendment to mean all of us should be armed is to disregard history. I believe the right to defend ones self is a GOD-given right, one of the inalienable rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence. I am not fixated on the legal arguments of the 2dA because it is so limited in its scope. I sincerely feel that it is my right as a free man, period. Luckily, for me, my state, Tennessee, agrees to that principle at least to the extent that I can carry a weapon to defend myself. If you live in a state that does not allow you to carry a weapon for self-defense, there is a controlling "aristocracy" keeping you disarmed and in my opinion you are not a free man.

__________________
" A man has got to know his limitations!"
Inspector Harry Callihan, SFPD

BAC

Very well said, wjh2657.


-B

__________________
RIP, Jeff Dorr: 1964 - July 17, 2009. You will be missed.


Defensive Carry Search Tips


Step 1 - Choose a subforum on right side under "Search in Forum(s)"
Step 2 - Type general topic of interest in "Search by Keyword" textbox.
Step 3 - Read results and refine/repeat as necessary.

ccw9mm

Yeah, well, the wee little bit of time you're referring to is only the period from 1787 to 1791. The 2A didn't come into play until 1791. The point is, since 1791 the Constitution-with-2A has been pretty darned clear about protecting the right of the People to be armed, and to bear those arms. No real restrictions were indicated, despite what might have been discussion points in any preceding congressional debates or gatherings, and despite what might have been written in the Federalist Papers or any other document of substance around that time.

The twisted interpretations of power-bent lawyers is what has turned it into the morass it has become, IMO.

I, too, am not all-fired enamored of the "saintly" Founders. Whenever I refer to the founding principles or people involved, though, I really mean to invoke the whole work of the Constitution and the entire lot of folks who were part of its early years. Those founders put much into play and, since 1791, it (the 2A) has been the same wording and same, basically unrestricted meaning of the words. Yet, it's been twisted to Hell and gone to instead apply in a fairly restrictive sense, sadly. The powerful fearing the People, as has occurred in most of history.

Thankfully, nobody in 150yrs of futzing with the law at the federal level has anyone dared take on the several states to suggest the states didn't have the right to call their own shots. Trouble is, for the Constitution of core principles to have any meaning at all, those basic principles have to apply to the People. They either do or they don't. Since some of them do, it's simply beyond all logic that all of them don't. At least, it seems so to me.

But, there it is. The Constitution and 2A is what it is. It'll be wrangled over again, too, given the pipeline of legal actions coming. I hope one or more of them will put this puppy to rest, once and for all. All this terrible conniving on the part of anti-Constitutionalists (anti-gunners) is hard to stomach, since it tears at the heart of one of the founding, core principles. I'd like to see the axes buried on the issue, finally. We'll see, in the next several years, hopefully.

__________________
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
Thoughts: Justifiable self defense.
Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
Deal with evil through strength. Affirm the good in Man through trust.
NRA. GOA. OFF.

BAC

False dichotomy. There is nothing at all preventing the United States Constitution from applying only to the United States (except where it explicitly states otherwise), and the individual state constitutions from applying to their respective states, and the whole thing working fine. The US Constitution doesn't apply principles to anyone, anywhere. It's a binding legal document outlining the limitations of government(s).

I, for one, look forward to the responses to the Supreme Court decision more than I do the decision itself.


-B

__________________
RIP, Jeff Dorr: 1964 - July 17, 2009. You will be missed.


Defensive Carry Search Tips


Step 1 - Choose a subforum on right side under "Search in Forum(s)"
Step 2 - Type general topic of interest in "Search by Keyword" textbox.
Step 3 - Read results and refine/repeat as necessary.