# Guns are having a VERY bad day at SCOTUS



## Synthaholic (Nov 3, 2021)

Difficult questions from Kagan and CJ Roberts. The basics:


----------



## Meister (Nov 3, 2021)

Should be a state by state issue, not a federal issue.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Nov 3, 2021)

Meister said:


> Should be a state by state issue, not a federal issue.


Except for when that state doesn't do what you like.............

One could say abortion should be a state by state issue....but


----------



## Hugo Furst (Nov 3, 2021)

Read that yesterday.

seems BOTH sides are trying to use the same ancient English law to make their cases.

Decision will be interesting.


----------



## Meister (Nov 3, 2021)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Except for when that state doesn't do what you like.............
> 
> One could say abortion should be a state by state issue....but


I agree, I think abortion should be a state by state issue as it was before Roe vs Wade.
That wasn't good enough for the liberals.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Nov 3, 2021)

I think SCOTUS will throw out the New York law.

At the least they'll tell New York to try again and not to be so extreme next time.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 3, 2021)

NY and its scheme of conditonal recognition of rights was destroyed.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Nov 3, 2021)

Meister said:


> Should be a state by state issue, not a federal issue.


what should be? the 2nd amendment itself? or the expansion of its meaning?


----------



## the other mike (Nov 3, 2021)

Meister said:


> Should be a state by state issue, not a federal issue.


What about CC licenses for people working out of state, travelers....?
I live and work out of Arkansas....if I'm carrying thousands of dollars worth of equipment in Texas or Louisiana, I should have every right to protect my property.

If your grandparents are on vacation in a $200k RV, your wife works out of town alone, your kids in college in some big city....all law abiding Americans will fight for this right, trust me. Especially after last year.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Nov 3, 2021)

Meister said:


> Should be a state by state issue, not a federal issue.


Absolutely and unequivocally not.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 3, 2021)

Meister said:


> Should be a state by state issue, not a federal issue.



The states lost that power when they wrote and enforced the Black Codes and forbade Black CITIZENS the right to keep and bear arms.

So yeah, state's can't say *Blacks can't own a gun *but what's before the SCOTUS now is a whether a state or citty can be _geographically_ discriminatory, ignoring a fundamental principle of our nation, *equal protection*.

Why are you supportive of discrimination?  

Why do you oppose equal protection?


----------



## Flash (Nov 3, 2021)

Meister said:


> Should be a state by state issue, not a federal issue.


So the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to all Americans, regardless of the state?


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 3, 2021)

Meister said:


> Should be a state by state issue, not a federal issue.


Then, why do we need a second amendment?


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Nov 3, 2021)

If they decide we cannot, then we truly are headed for a civil war.


U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Major Gun Rights Case From NY​



> The U.S. Supreme Court returns to the divisive issue of gun rights on Wednesday with arguments in a challenge to New York state’s limits on carrying concealed handguns in public – a case that could imperil certain firearms restrictions nationally.








__





						U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Major Gun Rights Case From NY
					





					www.msn.com


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Nov 3, 2021)

*"The case could yield the most important gun rights ruling in more than a decade."*

I think it goes way beyond that.


----------



## Penelope (Nov 3, 2021)

Meister said:


> Should be a state by state issue, not a federal issue.


It is a federal issue, guns travel amongst states.


----------



## the other mike (Nov 3, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Then, why do we need a second amendment?


Translation.........
The Constitution is as irrelevant as the 10 Commandments now,
so why even have it ?


----------



## pknopp (Nov 3, 2021)

You heard it here first. They are going to rule you can't.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 3, 2021)

Meister said:


> Should be a state by state issue, not a federal issue.




No.....the Constitution protects Rights from both federal and state violation....otherwise when the democrat party used poll taxes and literacy tests to violate the voting Rights of blacks, that would have been okay..instead it was unConstitutional.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 3, 2021)

Synthaholic said:


> Difficult questions from Kagan and CJ Roberts. The basics:




Kagan?

You mean the known, left wing extremists on the court?


----------



## McRib (Nov 3, 2021)

Could you imagine the January 6th insurrection if the insurrectionists all had firearms? They were told in advance that they would be arrested if they were armed. I think the Supremes are smart enough to shoot this down (pun intended)


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Nov 3, 2021)

pknopp said:


> You heard it here first. They are going to rule you can't.



Get ready for a huge backlash if they do.


----------



## JGalt (Nov 3, 2021)

pknopp said:


> You heard it here first. They are going to rule you can't.



Hell. I already refuse to comply with bans on carrying my weapon into businesses that have "No Weapons" signs posted on the doors. Except I won't carry in a Post Office, public school court house, or police station.

Nothing's going to change.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 3, 2021)

odanny said:


> Could you imagine the January 6th insurrection if the insurrectionists all had firearms? They were told in advance that they would be arrested if they were armed. I think the Supremes are smart enough to shoot this down (pun intended)




There was no insurrection......there were no guns......

Most of the people simply walked the halls and took selfies while the blm and Antifa thugs attacked the police on the other side of the building......


----------



## JGalt (Nov 3, 2021)

2aguy said:


> There was no insurrection......there were no guns......
> 
> Most of the people simply walked the halls and took selfies while the blm and Antifa thugs attacked the police on the other side of the building......



Anyone who believes Jan 6 was an "insurrection" is a BlueAnon conspiracy theory nutcase. There weren't enough police and National Guard there to stop an actual insurrection if that's what we'd intended to do.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Nov 3, 2021)

DigitalDrifter said:


> If they decide we cannot, then we truly are headed for a civil war.



A doubtful occurrence, but even if, it would be completely ignored.


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Nov 3, 2021)

This is the sort of case to reach the Supremes, that could end up having huge ramifications across the country.
If they rule that New York can refuse to issue concealed permits, then other states will likely get the courage to enact other restrictive laws.


----------



## pknopp (Nov 3, 2021)

DigitalDrifter said:


> Get ready for a huge backlash if they do.




I'll also bet there will be no huge backlash. They are going to pull a fast one.

 When a person gets heard before the Supreme Court the court rules on the question presented. The court did what it rarely does and changed the question.

 The question presented was _ “Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.” _

 The court couldn't get four votes to hear that question. So they changed the question to _whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment _

 What they did was narrow the question down to the two people who brought the suit as opposed to a general rights question as they should have made their ruling.

 So it's going to be a very narrow split ruling at best. States are still going to be allowed to make you get their approval to carry.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

Synthaholic said:


> Difficult questions from Kagan and CJ Roberts. The basics:


A State has a right to a well regulated militia (of the People).


----------



## JGalt (Nov 3, 2021)

DigitalDrifter said:


> This is the sort of case to reach the Supremes, that could end up having huge ramifications across the country.
> If they rule that New York can refuse to issue concealed permits, then other states will likely get the courage to enact other restrictive laws.



Except for one thing: The Second Amendment isn't a "states right." It's a federal right.

I'd be surprised if they voted for new York, but stranger things have happened over the last year.


----------



## Synthaholic (Nov 3, 2021)

JGalt said:


> Hell. I already refuse to comply with bans on carrying my weapon into businesses that have "No Weapons" signs posted on the doors. Except I won't carry in a Post Office, public school court house, or police station.
> 
> Nothing's going to change.


Try to get into your state Capitol with one.


----------



## Synthaholic (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> A State has a right to a well regulated militia (of the People).


In what way are they regulated?


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 3, 2021)

DigitalDrifter said:


> If they decide we cannot, then we truly are headed for a civil war.
> 
> 
> U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Major Gun Rights Case From NY​
> ...


MORE second amendment remedies

I am a responsible gun owner
If you touch my guns, I will kill you


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Nov 3, 2021)

Synthaholic said:


> Difficult questions from Kagan and CJ Roberts. The basics:


"At issue is the meaning of the “right to keep and bear arms” that was added to the Constitution in 1791 and expanded by the high court in 2008."

There was no expansion, silly.  The Court merely reiterated the original intent.


----------



## McRib (Nov 3, 2021)

2aguy said:


> There was no insurrection......there were no guns......
> 
> *Most of the people simply walked the halls and took selfies while the blm and Antifa thugs attacked the police on the other side of the building......*



You're an idiot.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

JGalt said:


> Except for one thing: The Second Amendment isn't a "states right." It's a federal right.
> 
> I'd be surprised if they voted for new York, but stranger things have happened over the last year.


Why do you believe that? 

_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._


----------



## Meister (Nov 3, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Then, why do we need a second amendment?


Perhaps, I didn't expound on what I exactly meant, and that is on me.
Make no mistake I do believe in the Second Amendment.
What I was referencing  (very poorly) was the conceal and carry.
I believe it is a state issue with the C&C, some states you do not need
a certificate for C&C like here in Id. and other states you do need one.
A most humble apology.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 3, 2021)

Synthaholic said:


> Difficult questions from Kagan and CJ Roberts. The basics:



All nine justices could have stood up and, in uision, voted to strike the NY law _in toto_ and your subject line would be the same.

You do not at all understand the issue here, and you have no desire to do so - instead, you, like the useful idiot you are, simply parrot the talking points of your masters.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 3, 2021)

Meister said:


> Should be a state by state issue, not a federal issue.


The states are limited by the 2nd.
Thus, federal issue.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 3, 2021)

odanny said:


> Could you imagine the January 6th insurrection if the insurrectionists all had firearms?


If it were an -actual- insurrection, they -would- have all had firearms.


----------



## McRib (Nov 3, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> If it were an -actual- insurrection, they -would- have all had firearms.


M14 shooter is lecturing us about gun laws and insurrections. 

What could go wrong?


----------



## JGalt (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Why do you believe that?
> 
> _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._



That's what it says. There is nothing in the first half that excludes the second half. There is nothing in the first half that puts conditions on the second half.

_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._


----------



## marvin martian (Nov 3, 2021)

Synthaholic said:


> Difficult questions from Kagan and CJ Roberts. The basics:



Is this what you're trying to salvage after your party got absolutely REKT in the elections yesterday?

LOL! As always, keep your fascist hands off my civil rights.


----------



## marvin martian (Nov 3, 2021)

odanny said:


> M14 shooter is lecturing us about gun laws and insurrections.
> 
> What could go wrong?



I'd be a lot more worried if it was your fellow DemoKKKrat Alec Baldwin.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 3, 2021)

odanny said:


> M14 shooter is lecturing us about gun laws and insurrections.
> What could go wrong?


I accept your concession of the point.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

Synthaholic said:


> In what way are they regulated?


The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

JGalt said:


> That's what it says. There is nothing in the first half that excludes the second half. There is nothing in the first half that puts conditions on the second half.
> 
> _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._


That which is necessary is not optional and, therefore a right.


----------



## McRib (Nov 3, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> I accept your concession of the point.



I concede nothing, jails are still filled with insurrectionists. Now imagine if that treasonous scum carried firearms. You think the Supremes are good with that?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 3, 2021)

odanny said:


> I concede nothing,


Because you refuse to accept the truth.
An insurrection is an attempt to overthrow a government -- when you plan to overthrow a government, you need to project force, and you aren't worried about the laws against carrying a firearm
Thus:
If it were an -actual- insurrection, they -would- have all had firearms.


----------



## pknopp (Nov 3, 2021)

odanny said:


> I concede nothing, jails are still filled with insurrectionists. Now imagine if that treasonous scum carried firearms. You think the Supremes are good with that?



 Our rights aren't really based upon what the Supreme's are good with. I doubt any of them are thrilled that the KKK gets equal access to free speech as anyone but they do. 

 There are possible negative aspects to all of our rights but the idea is, having those rights are better than the alternative. 

 But as I note in my first post the court isn't going to make any grand ruling here. A very narrow ruling at best.


----------



## McRib (Nov 3, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Because you refuse to accept the truth.
> An insurrection is an attempt to overthrow a government -- when you plan to overthrow a government, you need to project force, and you aren't worried about the laws against carrying a firearm
> Thus:
> If it were an -actual- insurrection, they -would- have all had firearms.


So there is a "requirement" that a violent attempt to stop an election is not an insurrection because firearms were not involved? Overturning the results of a free and fair election by violence is an insurrection, even if unsuccessful and even if your mind cannot grasp the concept.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 3, 2021)

pknopp said:


> I'll also bet there will be no huge backlash. They are going to pull a fast one.
> 
> When a person gets heard before the Supreme Court the court rules on the question presented. The court did what it rarely does and changed the question.
> 
> ...




Yeah.....I don't think so.....like saying Brown v Board only applied to Brown...and no one else..


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 3, 2021)

odanny said:


> I concede nothing, jails are still filled with insurrectionists. Now imagine if that treasonous scum carried firearms. You think the Supremes are good with that?




Oh....you are one of them....


----------



## McRib (Nov 3, 2021)

pknopp said:


> Our rights aren't really based upon what the Supreme's are good with. I doubt any of them are thrilled that the KKK gets equal access to free speech as anyone but they do.
> 
> There are possible negative aspects to all of our rights but the idea is, having those rights are better than the alternative.
> 
> But as I note in my first post the court isn't going to make any grand ruling here. A very narrow ruling at best.


They are not going to rule that Americans can carry firearms with them wherever they want to. The conservatives are indeed ideologues, but they are not crazy. They might overturn Roe V. Wade, but state laws will remain in force about carrying firearms openly or concealed.


----------



## pknopp (Nov 3, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Yeah.....I don't think so.....like saying Brown v Board only applied to Brown...and no one else..



 Watch. It's why they did the rare thing and changed the wording of the question. They changed the wording to specifically make it a very narrow ruling.


----------



## McRib (Nov 3, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Oh....you are one of them....


Go clean your guns.


----------



## pknopp (Nov 3, 2021)

odanny said:


> They are not going to rule that Americans can carry firearms with them wherever they want to. The conservatives are indeed ideologues, but they are not crazy. They might overturn Roe V. Wade, but state laws will remain in force about carrying firearms openly or concealed.



 Well this isn't about RvW so I will skip that but the court has already shown they are not going to make the blanket ruling that all can carry firearms. They couldn't even get 4 justices to even hear that question.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 3, 2021)

odanny said:


> So there is a "requirement" that a violent attempt to stop an election is not an insurrection because firearms were not involved?


That's how an if-then works.
You cannot force the capitulation of a government w/o the ability to project force.
So:
IF they "all" meant to attempt a violent overthrow the government THEN they "all" would have brought firearms.
They didn't.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 3, 2021)

odanny said:


> They are not going to rule that Americans can carry firearms with them wherever they want to


They -are- going to rule that states cannot require their citizens to demonstrate, against some unspecified and subjective standard, a "need" before they can exercise their rights.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 3, 2021)

odanny said:


> Could you imagine the January 6th insurrection if the insurrectionists all had firearms? They were told in advance that they would be arrested if they were armed. I think the Supremes are smart enough to shoot this down (pun intended)



The Reichstag Fire?

See, that's how you know it was NOT an "Insurrection"


----------



## Flash (Nov 3, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The Reichstag Fire?
> 
> See, that's how you know it was NOT an "Insurrection"




I'm watching the Kyle Rittenhouse trail.

How come all those BLM/Communists Insurrectionists that did the tremendous destruction in Kenoska not in jail?  Including that shithead that attacked Kyle?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 3, 2021)

Flash said:


> I'm watching the Kyle Rittenhouse trail.
> How come all those BLM/Communists Insurrectionists that did the tremendous destruction in Kenoska not in jail?  Including that shithead that attacked Kyle?


The same reason Rittenhouse is on trial.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 3, 2021)

Roberts:
“The idea that you would need a license to exercise a right is unusual with regard to the Bill of Rights,”


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 3, 2021)

WillHaftawaite said:


> seems BOTH sides are trying to use the same ancient English law to make their cases.



  Which seems very odd, given that the whole point of the manner in which this nation was founded was to reject and rebel against English rule.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 3, 2021)

Alito:
"People with illegal guns are walking around, but ordinary people can't be armed?"

Kavanaugh
"Why isn't it enough to say, 'I live in a high-crime area, and I want to defend myself?"


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 3, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Roberts:
> “The idea that you would need a license to exercise a right is unusual with regard to the Bill of Rights,”



If he wasnt such a moron we would have a really strong court.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 3, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Alito:
> "People with illegal guns are walking around, but ordinary people can't be armed?"
> 
> Kavanaugh
> "Why isn't it enough to say, 'I live in a high-crime area, and I want to defend myself?"



Thanks, I am going to listen to the arguments at the courts podcast


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 3, 2021)

Meister said:


> Should be a state by state issue, not a federal issue.


The Constitution says the people have the right to keep and bear arms.  Its the supreme law of the land.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 3, 2021)

Synthaholic said:


> Try to get into your state Capitol with one.


I don't need to go to my state capitol, so it's irrelevant.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Alito:
> "People with illegal guns are walking around, but ordinary people can't be armed?"
> 
> Kavanaugh
> "Why isn't it enough to say, 'I live in a high-crime area, and I want to defend myself?"


Why is it soo difficult for our legislators to do the job they get paid to do?

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> The Constitution says the people have the right to keep and bear arms.  Its the supreme law of the land.


It also says well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## Gabe Lackmann (Nov 3, 2021)

But I thought we were just ONE MORE justice away from a conservative majority?

LOL!

Fuck SCOTUS.

Spineless, worthless, commie fuckheads.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> It also says well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free State.


And because of the existence of a government controlled militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, in which to defend themselves from rogue elements of the government, shall not be infringed.

In the interest of accuracy: it says "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state"


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> And because of the existence of a government controlled militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, in which to defend themselves from rogue elements of the government, shall not be infringed.
> 
> In the interest of accuracy: it says "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state"


Only because our State legislators are not doing the job they get paid to do.  

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 3, 2021)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Except for when that state doesn't do what you like.............
> 
> One could say abortion should be a state by state issue....but


No No No, States should be free to interpret the federal constitution any way they like. Because duh.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 3, 2021)

odanny said:


> Could you imagine the January 6th insurrection if the insurrectionists all had firearms? They were told in advance that they would be arrested if they were armed. I think the Supremes are smart enough to shoot this down (pun intended)


Because of DC gun laws. That's why they left the guns in the car an opted for metal poles and chemical spray.


----------



## JGalt (Nov 3, 2021)

The title of this thread is incorrect. The consensus seems to point to the SC's ruling supporting the Second Amendment.

Justices’ Questions Suggest New York Gun-Control Law Unlikely to Survive

The Supreme Court Isn’t Gun-Shy Anymore

Supreme Court Considering Challenge To New York Gun Law


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 3, 2021)

pknopp said:


> What they did was narrow the question down to the two people who brought the suit as opposed to a general rights question as they should have made their ruling.
> 
> So it's going to be a very narrow split ruling at best. States are still going to be allowed to make you get their approval to carry.


Correct.

The may-issue provision of the law will be invalidated, or at least subject to a test to determine if a given regulation manifests as an undue burden.

But laws requiring a permit or license to carry a concealed weapon will remain Constitutional; likewise laws that prohibit the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools, courthouses, and police stations.


----------



## pknopp (Nov 3, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Correct.
> 
> *The may-issue provision of the law will be invalidated, or at least subject to a test to determine if a given regulation manifests as an undue burden. *
> 
> But laws requiring a permit or license to carry a concealed weapon will remain Constitutional; likewise laws that prohibit the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools, courthouses, and police stations.



 Unfortunately IMO we will be back to the Supreme Court to determine what is an "undue burden" because the court so limits their rulings.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 3, 2021)

DigitalDrifter said:


> This is the sort of case to reach the Supremes, that could end up having huge ramifications across the country.
> If they rule that New York can refuse to issue concealed permits, then other states will likely get the courage to enact other restrictive laws.


Wrong.

New York is not ‘refusing’ to issue carry permits; residents of the state are authorized to carry concealed weapons when they satisfy the may issue provision.

And even if the Court were to uphold the may issue provision – which it won’t – it won’t ‘embolden’ other states to enact similar laws, the notion fails as a slippery slope fallacy.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 3, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Alito:
> "People with illegal guns are walking around, but ordinary people can't be armed?"
> 
> Kavanaugh
> "Why isn't it enough to say, 'I live in a high-crime area, and I want to defend myself?"



  Even Kavanaugh is wrong.

  Why should one be required to give any reason why he should be allowed to exercise a right?  It's enough that the right is explicitly declared and protected in the Constitution, and that the Constitution forbids this right from being infringed.


----------



## Synthaholic (Nov 3, 2021)

marvin martian said:


> Is this what you're trying to salvage after your party got absolutely REKT in the elections yesterday?



You're delusional. One race and you're jizzing all over the place.

Democrats did fine everywhere else. Michigan even elected two Muslim mayors, and Boston elected an Asian woman.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 3, 2021)

JGalt said:


> Except for one thing: The Second Amendment isn't a "states right." It's a federal right.


Incorrect.

The Second Amendment was incorporated to the states in 2010 (see _McDonald v. Chicago_).

Both Federal and state firearm regulatory measures are subject to Second Amendment jurisprudence.


----------



## Synthaholic (Nov 3, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> The Constitution says the people have the right to keep and bear arms.  Its the supreme law of the land.


Nope, just well-regulated militias.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Nov 3, 2021)

Synthaholic said:


> Nope, just well-regulated militias.




When is the last time you read it?

Does it give the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to the militia, or the People?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 3, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Which seems very odd, given that the whole point of the manner in which this nation was founded was to reject and rebel against English rule.


Such ignorance.

The Anglo-American judicial tradition goes back nearly one thousand years; our Constitution and fundamental legal framework is based on English law.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 3, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Correct.
> 
> The may-issue provision of the law will be invalidated, or at least subject to a test to determine if a given regulation manifests as an undue burden.
> 
> But laws requiring a permit or license to carry a concealed weapon will remain Constitutional; likewise laws that prohibit the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools, courthouses, and police stations.


Which is all most people want.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 3, 2021)

WillHaftawaite said:


> When is the last time you read it?
> 
> Does it give the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to the militia, or the People?


That's up to the SCOTUS.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

If we don't need well regulated militia then we also don't need useless and alleged, wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._


----------



## Hugo Furst (Nov 3, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That's up to the SCOTUS.



You can't read this, and decide how to answer my question for yourself: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

are you THAT dependent on your superiors?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 3, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That's up to the SCOTUS.


They already ruled it is an individual right not tethered to the militia, do keep up.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 3, 2021)

WillHaftawaite said:


> You can't read this, and decide how to answer my question for yourself: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."


Of course I can, but you will get 1000 different answers from 1000 different people. But, if you are asking me to parse the literal meaning via syntax, it clearly implies that people should be able to bear arms for the purpose of participating in well-regulated militias. But that isn't how laws and courts work, in this country. Because the Constitution is very unclear on many things, having been written at a time when people still thought they could turn lead to gold, and "arms" meant single shot musket loaders.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 3, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> They already ruled it is an individual right not tethered to the militia, do keep up.


I didn't say or imply otherwise. Can you go ONE post without whining, please?


----------



## Hugo Furst (Nov 3, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Of course I can, but you will get 1000 different answers from 1000 different people. But, if you are asking me to parse the literal meaning via syntax, it clearly implies that people should be able to bear arms for the purpose of participating in well-regulated militias. But that isn't how laws and courts work, in this country. Because the Constitution is very unclear on many things, having been written at a time when people still thought they could turn lead to gold, and "arms" meant single shot musket loaders.





Fort Fun Indiana said:


> it clearly implies that people should be able to bear arms for the purpose of participating in well-regulated militias.



Doesn't say that.

Look again


----------



## frigidweirdo (Nov 3, 2021)

Synthaholic said:


> Difficult questions from Kagan and CJ Roberts. The basics:



Perhaps they should look at what the Founding Father said, and not what the English said.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 3, 2021)

pknopp said:


> Unfortunately IMO we will be back to the Supreme Court to determine what is an "undue burden" because the court so limits their rulings.


True.

As you correctly noted, the question presented in the writ of _certiorari_ was narrowed to make it acceptable to at least four justices and to keep the issue focused solely on the may issue provision of the law.

The original question:

_“Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.”_

Was replaced with:

_“…whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”_









						Op-Ed: Did the Supreme Court tip its hand on the blockbuster gun case it's hearing Wednesday?
					

A rare occurrence on the Supreme Court's docket shows that some of the conservative justices may be searching for middle ground on gun control.




					www.latimes.com
				




The original question could place in Constitutional jeopardy laws that prohibit the open carrying of firearms, such as in Florida.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 3, 2021)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Doesn't say that.


Sorry, but that is precisely what it says. But you, no doubt, are probably misunderstanding what I said anyway. Most Americans have the sharpness of logic of a marble covered in poo.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 3, 2021)

WillHaftawaite Let me help you out. It really helps if you understand how the negation of statements works. And when something is and is not a negation.

For example: What that sentence does NOT say is that ONLY those in well-regulated militias should have the right to bear arms.

maybe this will help your confusion.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Nov 3, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sorry, but that is precisely what it says. But you, no doubt, are probably misunderstanding what I said anyway. Most Americans have the sharpness of logic of a marble covered in poo.





Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sorry, but that is precisely what it says.



no, it doesn't.

Militias were made up of males, ages 16-45. (59 in a couple of states),.

Going by your 'version' of it, no one under the age of 16, or over the age of 45, or female, would be allowed to have a firearm.


Meaning Phoebe Ann Mosley* would never have been allowed to feed her family, or use her firearms in Buffalo Bills Wild West Show.

*(aka Annie Oakley)


----------



## Hugo Furst (Nov 3, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> WillHaftawaite Let me help you out. It really helps if you understand how the negation of statements works. And when something is and is not a negation.
> 
> For example: What that sentence does NOT say is that ONLY those in well-regulated militias should have the right to bear arms.
> 
> maybe this will help your confusion.



Then you agree with me, that the Right was given to the People, NOT the militia.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 3, 2021)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Going by your 'version' of it, no one under the age of 16, or over the age of 45, or female, would be allowed to have a firearm.


See, I knew you would make that error. And it is an error, due to lack of good education on the types of statements and their negations. A class in discrete mathematics would have helped. Or higher level philosophy courses.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Nov 3, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> See, I knew you would make that error. And it is an error, due to lack of good education on the types of statements and their negations. A class in discrete mathematics would have helped. Or higher level philosophy courses.


Mathematics?

Philosophy?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 3, 2021)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Then you agree with me, that the Right was given to the People, NOT the militia.


No, one cannot definitively say that, either. It simply gives the right to people to bear arms for the purpose of participating in a well-regulated militia. Unfortunately, it does not delineate whether it does or does not extend that right to others. And, if you check your history, you will see that, in our nascent nation, our military and the militias helping them went around and confiscated lots and lots of guns. Were they wrong to do so? Maybe. But they had nothing definitively telling them that they could not do it.

And that is why we have a Supreme Court. Things are "constitutional" precisely and only to the extent the SCOTUS says they are. That's the system. That's what we got. If anyone has a better idea, let's hear it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 3, 2021)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Mathematics?
> 
> Philosophy?


Correct. And your cackling demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of either and how they both deal with, among lots of other things, delineation of the types of statements and their negations. Computer Science also touches on this, as statements in computer programming must be very clear, as well as their negations. Else the code fails.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 3, 2021)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Mathematics?
> 
> Philosophy?


The following statement is true:

If WillHaftawaite  is a 90-year old tranny riding a rainbow unicorn, then the Moon is made of cheese.

Weird, huh? I assume you are not a 90-year old tranny. For the purpose of this exercise, anyway.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 3, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Which is all most people want.


Clearly not everyone.

It was naïve for the Second Amendment is ‘unlimited’ and ‘absolute’ crowd to think that the Court would rule in a manner that would lay waste to shall issue licensing laws and allow open carry in police stations, schools, and courthouses.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Nov 3, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, one cannot definitively say that, either. It simply gives the right to people to bear arms for the purpose of participating in a well-regulated militia. Unfortunately, it does not delineate whether it does or does not extend that right to others. And, if you check your history, you will see that, in our nascent nation, our military and the militias helping them went around and confiscated lots and lots of guns. Were they wrong to do so? Maybe. But they had nothing definitively telling them that they could not do it.
> 
> And that is why we have a Supreme Court. Things are "constitutional" precisely and only to the extent the SCOTUS says they are. That's the system. That's what we got. If anyone has a better idea, let's hear it.





Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It simply gives the right to people to bear arms for the purpose of participating in a well-regulated militia.



No, it doesn't.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Nov 3, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The following statement is true:
> 
> If WillHaftawaite  is a 90-year old tranny riding a rainbow unicorn, then the Moon is made of cheese.
> 
> Weird, huh? I assume you are not a 90-year old tranny. For the purpose of this exercise, anyway.



that makes even less sense than your insistence that one need to belong to a militia to bear arms.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 3, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Even Kavanaugh is wrong.
> 
> Why should one be required to give any reason why he should be allowed to exercise a right?  It's enough that the right is explicitly declared and protected in the Constitution, and that the Constitution forbids this right from being infringed.


Laws that place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights consistent with Constitutional case law is not to ‘infringe.’

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, following the original intent of the Framers as codified in Article VI.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 3, 2021)

WillHaftawaite said:


> No, it doesn't.


Sorry pal. That's what the statement conveys. that is its content. You can stomp your feet all night, makes no difference. It gives the right to people to bear arms for the purpose of participating in well regulated militias. That's all it says. you are being simple. I have done a fair job at explaining your errors and misunderstanding. I can't gift you with years of college education.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Nov 3, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sorry pal. That's what the statement conveys. that is its content. You can stomp your feet all night, makes no difference. It gives the right to people to bear arms for the purpose of participating in well regulated militias. That's all it says. you are being simple. I have done a fair job at explaining your errors and misunderstanding. I can't gift you with years of college education.





Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It gives the right to people to bear arms for the purpose of participating in well regulated militias.



It gives the people the right to bear arms, but not for the purpose of participating in a militia.

You act like a kid someone gave a hammer, and a 6' 2x4, and you're trying to build a rocket ship with it.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 3, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sorry pal. That's what the statement conveys. that is its content. You can stomp your feet all night, makes no difference. It gives the right to people to bear arms for the purpose of participating in well regulated militias. That's all it says. you are being simple. I have done a fair job at explaining your errors and misunderstanding. I can't gift you with years of college education.



What ever was paid for that education was wasted, a least as far as understanding the Constitution goes.

The 2nd Amendment does not grant, give, create or otherwise establish the right to keep and bear arms, thus the right in no manner depends on the words of the Constitution to exist.  That is SCOTUS saying that, in boringly consistent fashion, for now going on 145 Years.

So, not only are you profoundly wrong to impress your conditions and qualifications on the right from your biased read of words the right does not depend upon . . .  You also predicate those imaginary conditions and qualifications on a structure that is itself, entirely dependent upon the Constitution for its existence (the organized Art I, §8 militia).

So, you hit the wrong trifecta, the philosophy, the history and the law.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 3, 2021)

WillHaftawaite said:


> It gives the people the right to bear arms, but not for the purpose of participating in a militia.


Wrong again.

It clearly contextualizes that right as being invented because we needed well-regulated militias.

Here are two things it also does NOT say:

1) Those who may possibly participate in the future have the right to bear arms

2) Those who may participate in a militia in the future, but who are not in one now, do NOT have the right to bear arms

It neither grants or denies the right to bear arms to people not currently in a militia. Which allowed out nascent government to go around and confiscate a LOT of guns. Seems like you keep forgetting that little fact of history.

So it is not clear. For the purposes of instituting rights and forming code of law, we have a bbody we rely on 100% to interpret these unclear statements, using context of British Commonlaw, other existing parts of code of law, other documents from the time, etc. Which gave the SCOTUS plenty of room to mangle what was likely the original intent of the amendment and to take it places it was never meant to go.

But if anyone has a better system, I am all ears.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 3, 2021)

Abatis said:


> What ever was paid for that education was wasted, a least as far as understanding the Constitution goes.


A weak and childish attempt at insult, as the discussion is about parsing the meaning of the one sentence, as stated. What it states and does not state.

But now I know that you don't have much of an education in any related subject. So you should probably just pay attention and learn something


----------



## Hugo Furst (Nov 3, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Wrong again.
> 
> It clearly contextualizes that right as being invented because we needed well-regulated militias.
> 
> ...



It gives the people the right to keep and bear arms, it does not require militia membership to do so.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 3, 2021)

WillHaftawaite said:


> It gives the people the right to keep and bear arms, it does not require militia membership to do so.


Unfortunately, that isn't totally clear, in the language. Which is why it had to be clarified. I get it. I get your opinion of the feeling of the statement. I got it the first 100 times.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 3, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> A weak and childish attempt at insult, as the discussion is about parsing the meaning of the one sentence, as stated. What it states and does not state.



Parsing words that the right does not depend upon to invent dependencies is anti-constitutional.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> But now I know that you don't have much of an education in any related subject. So you should probably just pay attention and learn something



Well, I know the right to arms isn't given, created granted or established by the 2nd Amendment.  OTOH, your interpretation can only make any sense if you ignore the founders, framers and SCOTUS.

.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 3, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Parsing words that the right does not depend upon to invent dependencies is anti-constitutional.


 I did not invent any dependencies. I clearly said it is just unclear. PLEASE try to follow.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 3, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I did not invent any dependencies. I clearly said it is just unclear. PLEASE try to follow.


ORLY?



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> if you are asking me to parse the literal meaning via syntax, it clearly implies that people should be able to bear arms for the purpose of participating in well-regulated militias.





Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It simply gives the right to people to bear arms for the purpose of participating in a well-regulated militia.





Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It gives the right to people to bear arms for the purpose of participating in well regulated militias.



So, we have established you are a liar _too_.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 3, 2021)

Synthaholic said:


> Guns are having a VERY bad day at SCOTUS


Let’s say Second Amendment absolutists are having a bad day – in that it seems as if shall issue concealed carry permitting laws will remain Constitutional.


----------



## pknopp (Nov 3, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> True.
> 
> As you correctly noted, the question presented in the writ of _certiorari_ was narrowed to make it acceptable to at least four justices and to keep the issue focused solely on the may issue provision of the law.
> 
> ...



 Which are questions the Supreme Court was created to answer but as is so often the case, they are cowards and won't answer it.


----------



## Synthaholic (Nov 3, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> Perhaps they should look at what the Founding Father said, and not what the English said.


If Originalists like the Scalia model believe the theory that judges should hold the Constitution to the “public meaning” it had when it was adopted, then they must determine what words meant under British rule, which was all that these men had ever known.


----------



## Synthaholic (Nov 3, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Let’s say Second Amendment absolutists are having a bad day – in that it seems as if shall issue concealed carry permitting laws will remain Constitutional.


OK, let's say that.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 3, 2021)

Synthaholic said:


> Guns are having a VERY bad day at SCOTUS​



The media doesn’t agree with you











						Justices’ Questions Suggest New York Gun Control Law Is Unlikely to Survive
					

The law, which imposes strict limits on carrying guns in public, faced a skeptical reception from the Supreme Court on Wednesday.




					www.nytimes.com
				



​


----------



## frigidweirdo (Nov 3, 2021)

Synthaholic said:


> If Originalists like the Scalia model believe the theory that judges should hold the Constitution to the “public meaning” it had when it was adopted, then they must determine what words meant under British rule, which was all that these men had ever known.



I disagree. I think there's enough evidence out there about the meaning as it was between 1776 and 1789 to quite clearly see what it meant.


----------



## Synthaholic (Nov 3, 2021)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> The media doesn’t agree with you



The media is no longer fake and elections are no longer rigged, according to conservatives. Hallelujah!


----------



## Abatis (Nov 3, 2021)

Synthaholic said:


> OK, let's say that.


We can say that (predict that) and still say SCOTUS will enforce an individual, private citizen's right to bear arms in public for self-defense and all states will be forced to recognize it.

I agree, SCOTUS will *not *hold for a federally enforced right to carry concealed which means setting the rules for the actual manner of carriage will remain in the state's prerogative. (*see this post*)

Like what was said at oral argument, if the discriminatory policies are invalidated, the restrictive states will no doubt choose concealed carry as the manner of carry . . .  So while a "concealed carry right" won't be enforced by SCOTUS by direct decision, it will be a concealed carry win none-the-less, just one that we get by backing in.  And that's fine _for now_.

.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 3, 2021)

Synthaholic said:


> Nope, just well-regulated militias.


^^^
This is a lie.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 3, 2021)

Synthaholic said:


> Nope, just well-regulated militias.


Nowhere does the Constitution say that.  What it does say, is "the right of the people".  Just like the 1st Amendment says "the right of the people".  Its impossible to say those two sentences mean different things.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 3, 2021)

Abatis said:


> ORLY?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, we know, anyone who doesn't agree with you is lying. At all times.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Nowhere does the Constitution say that.  What it does say, is "the right of the people".  Just like the 1st Amendment says "the right of the people".  Its impossible to say those two sentences mean different things.


I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 3, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Correct.
> 
> The may-issue provision of the law will be invalidated, or at least subject to a test to determine if a given regulation manifests as an undue burden.
> 
> But laws requiring a permit or license to carry a concealed weapon will remain Constitutional; likewise laws that prohibit the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools, courthouses, and police stations.


A concealed carry permit is no different than a poll tax.  The court has already ruled that a right cannot be taxed.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


The militia is a government sanctioned, funded military force.  Be it part time, or full time.  But, the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the right of the militia to do so.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 3, 2021)

It does not say "only militias". That is true. It also doesn't make it clear that it means all people not in militias. Notice all blacks were prohibited. And you can call that unconstitutional, but in reality, it was perfectly constitutional, until amendment and law said it wasn't.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> The militia is a government sanctioned, funded military force.  Be it part time, or full time.  But, the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the right of the militia to do so.


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State. Our Second Amendment is not about natural or individual rights.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State. Our Second Amendment is not about natural or individual rights.


The Bill of Rights is absolutely about natural rights.  Self defense is a natural right.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> The Bill of Rights is absolutely about natural rights.  Self defense is a natural right.


No, it isn't.  Context matters and is Every Thing.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## Abatis (Nov 4, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes, we know, anyone who doesn't agree with you is lying. At all times.



No dumbass, you are a liar because you disagree with _yourself_.

It doesn't bother me if people disagree with me.

See, I frequent multiple message boards looking for debate in the gun topic and I present comprehensive positions and definitive statements; that should indicate I'm expecting, even desiring disagreement.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It does not say "only militias". That is true. It also doesn't make it clear that it means all people not in militias.



Only a person who is unfamiliar with constitutional philosophy, history and law would say that.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Notice all blacks were prohibited. And you can call that unconstitutional, but in reality, it was perfectly constitutional, until amendment and law said it wasn't.



The legal ability of Blacks, either as slaves, Freemen or citizens to own and use guns was never "prohibited" by the 2nd Amendment.  The 2nd Amendment was never the vehicle or mechanism of discriminatory laws, especially in the South. 

The primary legal mechanism the Southern states employed to justify / excuse their racist gun laws, was federal militia law.  Only the "_free able-bodied white male citizen_" of a state was allowed by federal law to enroll in the militia.  Southern states used that to advantage, declaring and codifying their state's right to arms to be restricted to only citizens eligible to enroll in the militia.  This peculiar legal situation worked to justify their laws forbidding Blacks, first Slaves who were not citizens, then Freemen and then even citizens, to possess and use firearms, and state courts dutifully sustained those laws.

Even after the 14th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment had no effect on state law; it protected no person, Slave or Free, White or Black from any state law codifying (allowing or prohibiting) gun possession and use.  Again, the 2nd Amendment could not possibly be the mechanism to enact or facilitate discriminatory law in any state; it only had effect and action on the federal government.

If you are observant and astute you _might_ see the origins of your theory about the 2nd Amendment at work here . . . Your belief that the right to arms is only recognized and secured for militia members, was birthed in the most discriminatory practices and laws this nation ever suffered.

Congratulations!

The racially discriminatory militia dependency theory was eventually killed _in the states_ but it was resurrected in the 20th Century in an equitable, colorblind manner, just extended to _anyone_ who might claim the protections of the 2nd Amendment in the courts of America. 

The reconstituted "militia right" interpretation of the _2nd Amendment,_ was inserted in the federal court system in 1942 in a lower federal court decision (_Cases v. U.S_, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942)) written purposefully to ignore and dismiss the Supreme Court's 1939 _Miller_ decision.

For 66 years the "militia right" from _Cases_ (along with the "state's right" from _U.S. v. Tot_, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942)) was the lower federal court's determination of the RKBA and the 2nd Amendment.  In 2008, SCOTUS in _Heller_ reaffirmed the individual right and invalidated _Cases_ and _Tot_.

The above is a sufficient rudimentary education in the history and law that should instill some curiosity in you about what your indoctrination never covered.  Now _*YOU*_ can disagree and call *ME* a liar but the above is indisputably the real history, the real law . . .

No doubt you have had a wonderful university education inflicted on you and it seems like you may have learned a little bit about the Constitution.  You might have studied civics and government, it's possible you have been instructed in the law.  Problem is, the  fundamental, inescapable defect in your thinking is everything you know about the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment, only extends to what your leftist professor wanted you to know.

I have been debating gun rights vs gun control since 1992, it was more fun back then because the anti-gunner's could actually formulate reasoned, supported arguments.  Of course back then they had the lower federal court jurisprudence on their side. 

In these 30 years I have learned that lawyers and "well educated" anti-gunners are the most fun to debate.  That's because it is usually the case that the best way to paper over stupidity is with expensive degrees.  Problem is, *here*, on an anonymous message board, nobody cares about your claimed education or your race or your gender or anything you use to distinguish or measure yourself IRL . . .   Here we are all the same, all that matters are our assembled words and arguments on the screen and the degree they are reasoned and supported.

You should try less juvenile dick flogging and more debating.


----------



## Dagosa (Nov 4, 2021)

Meister said:


> Should be a state by state issue, not a federal issue.


For sure. Big difference between a city with a million people vs an entire sparsely populated state with a million.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 4, 2021)

Dagosa said:


> For sure. Big difference between a city with a million people vs an entire sparsely populated state with a million.




Wrong...Rights to not decrease simply because you have more people....

Do you think too many people should limit voting...since it is much harder to count so many votes?

Do you think speech should be limited because too many people have things to say in big cities?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 4, 2021)

Synthaholic said:


> The media is no longer fake and elections are no longer rigged, according to conservatives. Hallelujah!







__





						Majority of Supreme Court appears to think NY gun law is too restrictive
					





					www.msn.com


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 4, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Laws that place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights consistent with Constitutional case law is not to ‘infringe.’


When has a requirement by a state to obtain a license for the simple exercise of a right been upheld by the USSC?


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 4, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> When has a requirement by a state to obtain a license for the simple exercise of a right been upheld by the USSC?



Im reading the transcript of the arguments…….sotomayor, kagan and breyer, the three stooges on the court….how did they ever get near a court room let alone the Supreme Court?

Their questions are just dumb.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 4, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Im reading the transcript of the arguments…….sotomayor, kagan and breyer, the three stooges on the court….how dis they ever get near a court room let alone the Supreme Court?
> 
> Their questions are just dumb.


Have a link to the transcript?


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 4, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Have a link to the transcript?



Here….i found a link at legal insurrection…..this is the transcript….



			https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2021/20-843_8n5a.pdf


----------



## Abatis (Nov 4, 2021)

The Constitution


M14 Shooter said:


> Have a link to the transcript?


Audio file page with embedded player for the oral argument and also link to download the mp3 and the transcript in pdf:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2021/20-843


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 4, 2021)

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual rights. 



> _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._





> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._


----------



## Captain Caveman (Nov 4, 2021)

Synthaholic said:


> Difficult questions from Kagan and CJ Roberts. The basics:


The thing is, America has a core constitutional document, whereas the UK has an uncodified one. The UK's constitution is constructed in the written aspects of the laws, statutes and legislation. That's a bit of a bugger to sit down and work out precisely what the UK's constitution, but the thing is, any ambiguity that arises can be tweaked by amending the relevant law, statute, legislation etc..

The ambiguity in America's constitution is still there and is still going through the SCOUTS since 1776.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 4, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> The ambiguity in America's constitution is still there and is still going through the SCOUTS since 1776.


The USSC did not exist until 1788, when the US constitution was ratified.
the USSC did not begin judicial review until 1803.
So....  no.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 4, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Because you refuse to accept the truth.
> An insurrection is an attempt to overthrow a government -- when you plan to overthrow a government, you need to project force, and you aren't worried about the laws against carrying a firearm
> Thus:
> If it were an -actual- insurrection, they -would- have all had firearms.


They would not only have been well armed, but would have had a plan to take over the media and military as well as police stations, NG armories, the Hover building and other critical infrastructure.  A insurrection is an organized plan to take over the government, NOT simply interfere with government business.  That's why not a single person form Jan 6th has been charged with insurrection.  They've all been charged with some variation of trespassing or interfering with government business.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 4, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> It also says well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free State.


"well regulated" in the idiom of the time meant properly operating.  A clock that kept good time was "well regulated".  The term didn't mean controlled as it does today.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 4, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> New York is not ‘refusing’ to issue carry permits; residents of the state are authorized to carry concealed weapons when they satisfy the may issue provision.
> 
> And even if the Court were to uphold the may issue provision – which it won’t – it won’t ‘embolden’ other states to enact similar laws, the notion fails as a slippery slope fallacy.


May issue in NY is like may issue in LA County.  Only celebrities, security companies, retired cops and some public officials qualify.  If you are an average citizen fuggitabout it.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 4, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual rights.


Every amendment in the Bill of Rights is about individual rights with the exception of the Tenth which specifically restricts the government to the enumerated powers.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 4, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> "well regulated" in the idiom of the time meant properly operating.  A clock that kept good time was "well regulated".  The term didn't mean controlled as it does today.


Where did right-wingers come up with that?  In any case, any definition from a dictionary would be incorrect.  Well regulated must be prescribed by our federal Congress. 

_To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;_


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 4, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Every amendment in the Bill of Rights is about individual rights with the exception of the Tenth which specifically restricts the government to the enumerated powers.


That is simply not true. Context matters.  There are no individual or singular terms in our Second Amendment.  Simply implying it is a fallacy.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 4, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> That is simply not true. Context matters.  There are no individual or singular terms in our Second Amendment.  Simply implying it is a fallacy.


Get a real education you dumb ass,


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 4, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Every amendment in the Bill of Rights is about individual rights with the exception of the Tenth which specifically restricts the government to the enumerated powers.



  Even the Tenth Amendment hints at the principle of individual rights.  It mentions powers belonging to the federal government, powers belonging to the states, and powers belonging to the people.  Powers belonging to the people would be individual rights, as opposed to powers belonging to either level of government.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 4, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Get a real education you dumb ass,



  Getting drawn into an argument with danielpalos is like competing in the Special Olympics.  Even when you win, you're still a retard, just for letting him bait you into disrupting the thread with his bullshit.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 4, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Get a real education you dumb ass,


You first.  You need valid arguments for rebuttal, not merely ad hominems which are usually considered fallacies or errors in reasoning.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 4, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Getting drawn into an argument with danielpalos is like competing in the Special Olympics.  Even when you win, you're still a retard, just for letting him bait you into disrupting the thread with his bullshit.


I resort to the fewest fallacies, unlike those of the Opposing View.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 4, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones 

What's so funny?  Are you saying a right can be taxed?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 4, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> That is simply not true. Context matters.  There are no individual or singular terms in our Second Amendment.  Simply implying it is a fallacy.


The 2nd Amendment specifically states "the right of the people", just like the 1st Amendment does.  Are you going to apply the same standard to the 1st Amendment?...lol


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 4, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> The 2nd Amendment specifically states "the right of the people", just like the 1st Amendment does.  Are you going to apply the same standard to the 1st Amendment?...lol


No, because the context deals with individual rights; unlike the Second Amendment.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 4, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> A concealed carry permit is no different than a poll tax.  The court has already ruled that a right cannot be taxed.


Wrong.

All manner of rights are subject to permits and registration requirements that are perfectly Constitutional:

‘Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at UCLA and curator of the libertarian-leaning Volokh.com site, addresses this in an article in the latest _UCLA Law Review_. It argues that a registration requirement is commonplace among other constitutional rights.

Volokh writes: "Even speakers may sometimes need to register or get licensed. Parade organizers may be required to get permits. Gatherers of initiative signatures may be required to register with the government, and so may fundraisers for charitable causes, though such fundraising is constitutionally protected." He adds that even the right to marry and the right to vote can require licenses or registration, and he believes gun rights are "more like the trackable rights, and that it is the untrackable rights that are the constitutional outlier."’









						Sorry, Mandatory Gun Registration Is Constitutional
					

Second Amendment Advocates Don't Like It, But It May Be Permissible; A Lawsuit Against Washington, D.C. Could Decide The Question




					www.cbsnews.com


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 4, 2021)

pknopp said:


> Which are questions the Supreme Court was created to answer but as is so often the case, they are cowards and won't answer it.


They’re also more politicians than jurists – they read the polls showing the low regard Americans have for the Court.


----------



## pknopp (Nov 4, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> They’re also more politicians than jurists – they read the polls showing the low regard Americans have for the Court.



 Unfortunately I believe we are heading more and more in that direction.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 4, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> When has a requirement by a state to obtain a license for the simple exercise of a right been upheld by the USSC?


All laws and acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the courts rule otherwise – ultimately the Supreme Court.

Laws and measures that place limits and restrictions on the Second Amendment right which have not been invalidated by the courts are perfectly Constitutional, in no manner ‘infringing’ on the Second Amendment right.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 4, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> C_Clayton_Jones
> 
> What's so funny?  Are you saying a right can be taxed?


What’s funny is your willful ignorance – it’s also sad.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 4, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> All manner of rights are subject to permits and registration requirements that are perfectly Constitutional:
> 
> ...


Name one right, listed in the Constitution that is taxed, or requires a permit, aside from gun ownership.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 4, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> What’s funny is your willful ignorance – it’s also sad.


You're the one that doesn't understand that the court ruled that rights can't be taxed.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 4, 2021)

pknopp said:


> Unfortunately I believe we are heading more and more in that direction.


We’ll see the same thing with privacy rights.

They lack the courage to overturn _Roe_ – instead they’ll allow the Texas or Mississippi anti-privacy rights laws to stand, authorizing _de facto_ abortion bans.


----------



## pknopp (Nov 4, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> We’ll see the same thing with privacy rights.
> 
> They lack the courage to overturn _Roe_ – instead they’ll allow the Texas or Mississippi anti-privacy rights laws to stand, authorizing _de facto_ abortion bans.



 They won't allow the laws to stand. Their arguments pretty well assured that. The justices that might be willing to overturn RvW understood this same kind of law could be used to ban guns and whatever else someone wanted to ban.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 4, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> All manner of rights are subject to permits and registration requirements that are perfectly Constitutional:


Sure.   Time, place and manner restrictions on the right to free speech, for instance.
Now, tell the class why the state can require a parade permit - a license -  but not a permit to place that "Let's go Brandon!" sign in your front window.
If you know, that is.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 4, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> All laws and acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the courts rule otherwise


Ah!  See!  You DO think the Texas abortion law is constitutional!
Just like I said.   Over and over and over.


----------



## pknopp (Nov 4, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Sure.   Time, place and manner restrictions on the right to free speech, for instance.
> Now, tell the class why the state can require a parade permit, but not a permit to place that "Let's go Brandon!" sign in your front window.
> If you know, that is.



 They can require a parade permit because you are closing down a street. Despite cities passing a law that says you have to get a permit to protest, you do not.


----------



## miketx (Nov 4, 2021)

Synthaholic said:


> Difficult questions from Kagan and CJ Roberts. The basics:


You're an idiot if you believe anything the LA Slimes prints. But then I digress. You see, we don't care what they say. Rights are rights. So come get some.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 4, 2021)

pknopp said:


> They can require a parade permit because you are closing down a street.


Of course.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 4, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> All laws and acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the courts rule otherwise – ultimately the Supreme Court.



Does that 'rule' extend to rights deemed fundamental by SCOTUS?  Does SCOTUS have to constantly, repeatedly correct and rebuke Congress like it is a incorrigible child?



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Laws and measures that place limits and restrictions on the Second Amendment right which have not been invalidated by the courts are perfectly Constitutional, in no manner ‘infringing’ on the Second Amendment right.



How do your statements in your quoted post, mesh with the quote you have chosen as your signature?

Your position seems to irreconcilably clash with signature; you seem to argue that no rights are withdrawn from the vicissitudes of political controversy.  You are saying the recognition and protection of our rights is not guided by permanent, inviolate principles.

You seem to be saying the Constitution sets no limits on Congressional power; Congress has the power to legislate on all subjects in any manner and specifically, their power to restrict rights is without any limits but being subject to later challenge, possible review and maybe invalidation _*after* enactment_.  

It is interesting, by what standard or benchmark will the Court decide if the law passed by Congress is an illegitimate exercise of power?  

How does the Constitution set rules for the Court that the Court is bound to operate within and enforce, but Congress has autonomy, complete independence from the Constitution, total freedom to make any law without regard for conformance with the Constitution?

Your position seems to have logical and legal incongruities.

Your sig, just to remind you . . .

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal Principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. Justice Robert H. Jackson, _West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette_, 1943​


----------



## Ivan88 (Nov 7, 2021)

*Politicians faithfully believe in and do the following because Americans rebelled against their Creator who has warned them, "Those who hate you rule over you.":*


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 7, 2021)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Except for when that state doesn't do what you like.............
> 
> One could say abortion should be a state by state issue....but



I disagree.
Guns have to be legislated by someone, but according to the 2nd amendment, not the feds.
And that makes sense because rural Alaska is full of bears, and very different than NYC.

But abortion should not be regulated by anyone at all, ever.
There is government who has need or standing to regulate abortion in any way.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 7, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> All laws and acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the courts rule otherwise – ultimately the Supreme Court.
> 
> Laws and measures that place limits and restrictions on the Second Amendment right which have not been invalidated by the courts are perfectly Constitutional, in no manner ‘infringing’ on the Second Amendment right.



Wrong.
The SCOTUS has been very wrong many times.
An obvious example it the Dread Scott Decision.
The fact we decide to let them fix their own mistakes is from our benevolence.
Legally, morally, and ethically we should not, and we should be up in arms more.
For example, Prohibition, Vietnam, the War on Drugs, mandated sentences, asset forfeiture, etc.
Those things murdered people, and those responsible should then pay the ultimate price.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 7, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Of course.



Not quite.
What they can require a permit for is when you want to infringe upon the rights of those who depend upon that road to get someplace.
The government itself has no authority to arbitrarily require or regulate anything.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Nov 9, 2021)

Frankeneinstein said:


> what should be? the 2nd amendment itself? or the expansion of its meaning?


The 2nd Amendment is (at a minimum) a ban on any federal authority.

Others argue that it does not specify, and is a ban on ALL authority.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Nov 9, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> That is simply not true. Context matters.  There are no individual or singular terms in our Second Amendment.  Simply implying it is a fallacy.


There are no collective rights independent of individual rights, PERIOD.  They do not exist.  It is a logical impossibility.

If you would quit espousing that COMPLETELY FLAWED position, you would actually be right about most of it.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 9, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> There are no collective rights independent of individual rights, PERIOD.  They do not exist.  It is a logical impossibility.
> 
> If you would quit espousing that COMPLETELY FLAWED position, you would actually be right about most of it.


_I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."_
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Nov 9, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Then, why do we need a second amendment?


To lay a foundation, set a floor as it were, our right to bear arms is then given a "skies the limit" expansion allowance in terms of freedom which can be different in each state but 2nd amendment puts all states under the same constitutional restraint in limiting the right to bear arms...
It used to be taught in schools that the second amendment [[along with the first] was/were our red flag amendment...you were taught to recognize those that would take our freedoms would have to first take our guns lest they become a statistic.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 9, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> _I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."_
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788



Exactly.
Those who think the militia is the National Guard have it wrong because when you chase a thief from your property, you are then the militia as well.
There were no police back then, and police really are not in our line of defense because they arrive too late.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 9, 2021)

_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._

You confuse the unorganized militia with the organized militia.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 9, 2021)

Frankeneinstein said:


> To lay a foundation, set a floor as it were, our right to bear arms is then given a "skies the limit" expansion allowance in terms of freedom which can be different in each state but 2nd amendment puts all states under the same constitutional restraint in limiting the right to bear arms...
> It used to be taught in schools that the second amendment [[along with the first] was/were our red flag amendment...you were taught to recognize those that would take our freedoms would have to first take our guns lest they become a statistic.



Exactly.
Without the right to bear arms, then you end  up with no rights at all.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 9, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Exactly.
> Without the right to bear arms, then you end  up with no rights at all.


_To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;_


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 9, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._
> 
> You confuse the unorganized militia with the organized militia.



Since the "right of the people" implies universality, it then can't be limited to just the organized militia, which could now be considered the National Guard.
The unorganized militia is not only who needed defensive arms the most often, but is where the organized militia has to draw from when needed.
So you need both, and can't really have either if you allow significant gun control.
Gun control by its nature is automatically against egalitarianism.
It always tends to the corruption of the wealthy elite over the masses, and implies the end of democracy.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 9, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Since the "right of the people" implies universality, it then can't be limited to just the organized militia, which could now be considered the National Guard.
> The unorganized militia is not only who needed defensive arms the most often, but is where the organized militia has to draw from when needed.
> So you need both, and can't really have either if you allow significant gun control.
> Gun control by its nature is automatically against egalitarianism.
> It always tends to the corruption of the wealthy elite over the masses, and implies the end of democracy.


No, it doesn't.  Only well regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 9, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> No, it doesn't.  Only well regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.



But you just quoted that the militia is the ENTIRE population.
If a granny needs to shoot a shotgun in the air to scare a fox from the chickens, she is the militia.

And again, "well regulated" means practiced and functioning smoothly.
The implication being that the founders wanted citizen soldiers instead of a mercenary military, and wanted to be sure the entire population was well versed in the use of weapons.
Citizen soldiers and gun control are contradictory.

Nor does ANYONE need "recourse" to the 2nd amendment.
The constitution does not create rights.
It simply was limiting federal jurisdiction, and prevented any federal jurisdiction over firearms.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 9, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> But you just quoted that the militia is the ENTIRE population.


_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;_


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 9, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;_



This is obviously saying the people as a whole ARE the unorganized militia that need to keep well versed in firearms.
The organized militia can then draw on this constantly firearm familiar pool when needed.

Sure the federal government is authorized to organize, arm, and discipline the organized Militia when needed.
But that can not happen if the people as a whole are not in possession of firearms, so they are familiar.

And clearly only part of the militia are ever called up.
Your quote says that.
{... _ for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States ...}_


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 9, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._
> 
> You confuse the unorganized militia with the organized militia.



That makes no sense.
The organized militia is the part of the militia that is called up for active duty by the federal government, so it can NOT be the organized militia the 2nd amendment is protecting.
What sense would it make to prevent the federal government from disarming its own troops?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 9, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> That makes no sense.
> The organized militia is the part of the militia that is called up for active duty by the federal government, so it can NOT be the organized militia the 2nd amendment is protecting.
> What sense would it make to prevent the federal government from disarming its own troops?


there is no point arguing with him he is brain dead.


----------



## meaner gene (Nov 9, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> The SCOTUS has been very wrong many times.
> An obvious example it the Dread Scott Decision.



Actually the Dred Scott decision teaches that the Supreme Court wasn't wrong, they were a reflection of what the country was at the time.  They found support for slavery in the constitution, and in the laws of the states.  
So in the end, Dred Scott was never overturned, it was constitutionally amended.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 9, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> This is obviously saying the people as a whole ARE the unorganized militia that need to keep well versed in firearms.
> The organized militia can then draw on this constantly firearm familiar pool when needed.
> 
> Sure the federal government is authorized to organize, arm, and discipline the organized Militia when needed.
> ...


_according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;_

That means "wellness of regulation" must be prescribed by Congress not any common definition in any dictionary.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 9, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> That makes no sense.
> The organized militia is the part of the militia that is called up for active duty by the federal government, so it can NOT be the organized militia the 2nd amendment is protecting.
> What sense would it make to prevent the federal government from disarming its own troops?


_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 9, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> there is no point arguing with him he is brain dead.


The First Sergeant told me not to pay attention to you.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 9, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;_



What need does a militia member have, for a, "_right to keep and bear arms_"?

Citing clause 16 powers, which were exercised in the various Militia Acts to organize, arm, and discipline the *organized* militia, shows that everything an *enrolled* militia member does _is under obligation of law_ _*-- NOT ANY RIGHT --*_ with legal penalties for refusing to muster when called or otherwise not complying.

No aspect of militia service is ever associated with any "right"; there was/is no free will or discretionary aspect afforded to the citizen when enrolled in militia service.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 10, 2021)

Abatis said:


> What need does a militia member have, for a, "_right to keep and bear arms_"?
> 
> Citing clause 16 powers, which were exercised in the various Militia Acts to organize, arm, and discipline the *organized* militia, shows that everything an *enrolled* militia member does _is under obligation of law_ _*-- NOT ANY RIGHT --*_ with legal penalties for refusing to muster when called or otherwise not complying.
> 
> No aspect of militia service is ever associated with any "right"; there was/is no free will or discretionary aspect afforded to the citizen when enrolled in militia service.


_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._

A well regulated militia is clearly expressed as being necessary, not optional like the unorganized militia. Thus, well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.  The unorganized militia does not enjoy that "exemption" and must be in strict subordination to the civil authority.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 10, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.



Can you point to any example in law when a militia member claimed any protections under the 2nd Amendment?  I'll try to ask again, what "right" does the 2nd protect for a militia member?

The *law* (the Militia Acts, written under §8 powers, _NOT THE 2ND AMENDMENT_) directs *everything* an enrolled militia member does from the moment of enrollment:


"every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack."

What part of that is either the exercise of a right or an example of the protection of a right?

When one reads the Bill of Rights we see militia members who are in the employ of the federal government, excluded from grand jury protections of the 5th Amendment; one is prosecuted under the UCMJ for any crimes committed.

Being an enrolled militia member is not an exercise of any rights, it is pure obligation, the absence of rights, you are under the complete direction of either the states or the federal government.



danielpalos said:


> The unorganized militia does not enjoy that "exemption" and must be in strict subordination to the civil authority.



JHC, you are backwards . . . You are claiming those who are under the complete control of law are exercising rights, and the citizens, "the people", who are not bound by militia law and are expressly exempted from all government powers regarding the right to keep and bear arms, are actually the ones bound by law.

Your position is, and will always be, legally incoherent.

.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 10, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Can you point to any example in law when a militia member claimed any protections under the 2nd Amendment? I'll try to ask again, what "right" does the 2nd protect for a militia member?


Our Civil War is proof.  The North had to win because Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; regardless of All of the other ones.

Your position is irrelevant since the unorganized militia, as Individuals of the People, are subject to the police power of their State or the Union.

For example:  _Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)_


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 10, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> This is obviously saying the people as a whole ARE the unorganized militia that need to keep well versed in firearms.
> The organized militia can then draw on this constantly firearm familiar pool when needed.
> 
> Sure the federal government is authorized to organize, arm, and discipline the organized Militia when needed.
> ...


The government is only authorized to "organize, arm and discipline the organized militia" when it's called to federal service.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 11, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Our Civil War is proof.  The North had to win because Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; regardless of All of the other ones.



You still refuse to answer my questions:

*What need does a militia member have, for a, "right to keep and bear arms"?

Can you point to any example in law when a militia member claimed any protections under the 2nd Amendment?*


SCOTUS has a series of militia cases and a separate and distinct series of 2nd Amendment / RKBA cases.  The two lines do not cross or mingle, the 2nd Amendment cases NEVER have had a militia member claiming the protections of the 2nd Amendment, nor do they ever have a state claiming the 2ndA protects a state's interest or authority to direct its militia from federal interference.

Your Civil War example fails when one recognizes Congress disbanded state militias because they were the enforcers of the "special laws" focused on Blacks.




The members of those disbanded militias, released from their enrollment and impressment and thus private citizens, were not disarmed because of their right secured to them by the 2nd Amendment.

There are no "militia rights" for anyone (citizen or state) to claim for any reason or purpose under the 2nd Amendment.



danielpalos said:


> Your position is irrelevant since the unorganized militia, as Individuals of the People, are subject to the police power of their State or the Union.



Who claims the 2nd Amendment ever protected private citizens from police operations?  The 2nd Amendment had no effect on state powers, including police powers.



danielpalos said:


> For example:  _Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)_



That is perhaps the worst state provision to cite for anything pertaining to rights . . .  That was enacted in 1970 following the race riots and DNC Convention unrest and it certainly was not enacted to _protect_ rights; it was enacted to justify gun control in Chicago and the police powers used to disarm the citizens, especially Black ones . . .

Again, the 2nd Amendment had *no* effect or impact on state powers; whatever right to arms state citizens possessed were only those recognized and secured under their state constitutions.  Some states have strong right to arms provisions, some none, and one, conditioned by the "police power" . . . 

We see what kinds of laws the states with no right to arms provisions have; NY, NJ, MD, CA, and the states with carve-outs authorizing anti-gun police action like Illinois' . . .  And none of that was impacted in the least by the 2nd Amendment until 2010, when SCOTUS spoke in _McDonald_ -- and about what?

The _Chicago_ handgun ban . . .

.


----------



## justoffal (Nov 11, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> I think SCOTUS will throw out the New York law.
> 
> At the least they'll tell New York to try again and not to be so extreme next time.


They actually have no choice but to put it down because it sets a precedent that will creep over into other civil rights.  There's no way to stop it from happening if they leave it standing.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 11, 2021)

Abatis said:


> *What need does a militia member have, for a, "right to keep and bear arms"?*


Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  Our civil war is one example.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 11, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Who claims the 2nd Amendment ever protected private citizens from police operations? The 2nd Amendment had no effect on state powers, including police powers.


You have a right to due process not a shoot out with police.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 11, 2021)

Abatis said:


> The _Chicago_ handgun ban . . .


In other words, Police have no civil duty to question or disarm Individual, criminals of the People who may be keeping and bearing Arms?


----------



## Abatis (Nov 11, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  Our civil war is one example.



So, you only have your goofy opinion, divorced from any association with the Constitution or law and you are compelled to repeat it like a robot, without any reference to what was said to you.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 11, 2021)

Abatis said:


> So, you only have your goofy opinion, divorced from any association with the Constitution or law and you are compelled to repeat it like a robot, without any reference to what was said to you.


Not at all.  It is merely Your understanding that is deficient.  How many people were charged with murder during our civil war?  And, the North had to win Because Only Well Regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 13, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Not at all.  It is merely Your understanding that is deficient.  How many people were charged with murder during our civil war?  And, the North had to win Because Only Well Regulated Militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.


And again, the very existence of the official militias of states was extinguished, stomped out because they were terrorizing people and committing murder.

No state and certainly no militia member ever claimed this imaginary, "literal recourse to our Second Amendment".  Those militias enforcing the laws of their state and bearing arms while undertaking those enforcement actions, were the cause of the dissolution of those militias, not their protection.

Saying there is a "literal recourse" means there is a "literal" _written_ framework in law that can be pointed to; a "recourse", means there is an established legal process to remedy a claim in law.

If such a condition existed, surely you can quote and cite *one example* of this "literal recourse" being claimed and recognized for any member of the "well regulated militia".

Does this "literal recourse" only exist in your mind as a theoretical concept, employed only to prop-up your goofy personal opinion of the 2nd Amendment?

For me to recognize your theory as having any validity as a point in law, you have to cite it in law and how it has been enforced in law.

Problem for you is you can't show any such condition ever existed for the 2nd Amendment.  You are just slinging your incoherent imagination; your repetition seems more intended to reinforce it in your own mind than trying to convince anyone else . . .  If you were trying to convince anyone else, especially someone with some knowledge in the topic, you would give it more effort than just mindlessly repeating the same thing, over and over.

Is that really all you got?

.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 13, 2021)

Abatis said:


> And again, the very existence of the official militias of states was extinguished, stomped out because they were terrorizing people and committing murder.
> 
> No state and certainly no militia member ever claimed this imaginary, "literal recourse to our Second Amendment".  Those militias enforcing the laws of their state and bearing arms while undertaking those enforcement actions, were the cause of the dissolution of those militias, not their protection.
> 
> ...


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Nov 18, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Exactly.
> Without the right to bear arms, then you end  up with no rights at all.


I'm not at all sure where we agree and disagree here.


----------

