Gun Protesters Plan March On D.C. With Loaded Rifles To ‘Put Government On Notice'

[C_Clayton_Jones]

what

it is the "right of the people" to Keep and bear arms

And as the Heller Court reaffirmed: no right is absolute, and all rights are subject to reasonable restrictions, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

Laws prohibiting OC of loaded firearms are Constitutional until a court rules otherwise.

they have to offer one or the other or both

Obviously you’re unaware of the fact this makes no sense.

 

[jon_berzerk]

And as the Heller Court reaffirmed: no right is absolute, and all rights are subject to reasonable restrictions, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

Laws prohibiting OC of loaded firearms are Constitutional until a court rules otherwise.

they have to offer one or the other or both

Obviously you’re unaware of the fact this makes no sense.

maybe but it has already been through court

 

[Cuyo]

they have to offer one or the other or both

Obviously you’re unaware of the fact this makes no sense.

maybe but it has already been through court

Citation, citation.

Until then, you're just reporting as true, that what you wish was true.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Obviously you’re unaware of the fact this makes no sense.

maybe but it has already been through court

Citation, citation.

Until then, you're just reporting as true, that what you wish was true.

Moore v. Madigan

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Adam Kokesh was arrested in Philly today, apparently.

Adam Kokesh arrested in Philly

 

[legaleagle_45]

or if you want to put it into 1791 context we have the right to form well regulated militias,

And the way the right to form a well regulated militia is protected is to insure that a preexisting right to have and use firearms for individual purposes is not infringed.

sure you can carry a musket around,

You think a well regulated militia armed with muskets would do well in todays world? Interesting...

 

[legaleagle_45]

Moore v. Madigan

Link to opinion:

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/12-1269/12-1269-2012-12-11.pdf

 

[legaleagle_45]

Obviously you’re unaware of the fact this makes no sense.

Actually, it does make sense. What Jon is saying is that if the law prohibits concealed carry it must allow open carry and vise versa. The conclusion is alluded to in Heller, where the say this:

For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251

In State v Chandler the court held:

The act of the 25th of March, 1813, makes it a misdemeanor to be "found with a concealed weapon, such as a dirk, dagger, knife, pistol, or any other deadly weapon concealed in his bosom, coat, or any other place about him, that does not appear in full view." This law became absolutely necessary to counteract a vicious state of society, growing out of the habit of carrying concealed weapons, and to prevent bloodshed and assassinations committed upon unsuspecting persons. It interfered with no man's right to carry arms (to use its words) "in full open view," which places men upon an equality. This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if neccessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.

In Nunn v State, the court held:

A law which merely inhibits the wearing of certain weapons in a concealed manner is valid. But so far as it cuts off the exercise of the right of the citizen altogether to bear arms, or, under the color of prescribing the mode, renders the right itself useless--it is in conflict with the Constitution, and void.

The theory espoused by the two cases cited by SCOTUS was the majority view.. to wit, that a law which regulated the manner of bearing arms would be valid so long as the right was not denied. Thus, so long as open carry was allowed, concealed carry could be banned. This logic was adopted by Peruta v. County of San Diego which held that California's law which allowed open carry maded the restrictions upon concealed carry Constitutional... of course, California subsequently outlawed open carry, so now Peruta is in front of the 9th Circ.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Laws prohibiting OC of loaded firearms are Constitutional until a court rules otherwise.

Actually, they are given a presumption of Constitutionality, but if they are found unconstitutional, then they are void ab initio. That presumption, of course, does not prohibit argument that the law is unconstituional, otherwise you would have to conceede that laws which prohibit same sex marriage are constitutional, since SCOTUS has not decided otherwise as of yet.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Arrest them all, and shoot them if they protest. No excuses for these pathetic people.

How very liberal of you...

 

[Billo_Really]

If OWS got to cause cause this kind of disturbance, which they did...guess where you'd be Lakhota? Singing their praises, because they took it upon themselves to disobey the government.

You hypocrite.

The OWS didn't bring loaded weapons to a rally and didn't march on Washington over dumbass, bullshit reasons. Nor did they threaten elected officials with "2nd Amendment remedies".

This march on Washington is as stupid as the 912/Bagger Nation march. Neither marches are (were) over a real (or important) issues. Both are (were) over made-up non-sense issues that do nothing but waste political time. No one is taking anyone's gun away and there is no justification for a march on Washington of this kind.

When you at major marches on Washington in the past, only 2 come up as a justified:

• MLK civil rights march on August 28, 1963
• Iraq anti-war march on February 15, 2003

And when you compare those marches to the ones above, not only are they un-justified, but they are just plain ridiculous.

All this talk from the right about being patriotic and embracing the Constitution is a bunch of bullshit! As soon as they don't get their way, they start crying like little 2 year olds.

 

[legaleagle_45]

When you at major marches on Washington in the past, only 2 come up as a justified:

• MLK civil rights march on August 28, 1963
• Iraq anti-war march on February 15, 2003

And when you compare those marches to the ones above, not only are they un-justified, but they are just plain ridiculous.

All this talk from the right about being patriotic and embracing the Constitution is a bunch of bullshit! As soon as they don't get their way, they start crying like little 2 year olds.

When protests must be lawfully justified on the basis of having a valid reason to protest, then the 1st Amend has just been lost.. You point to two as being justified??? Interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_protest_marches_on_Washington,_D.C.

 

[blackhawk]

A facebook invitation wow I suspect two things will happen with this first the left will try make this into some radical right wing extremist thing and second no will show up for it.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Arrest them all, and shoot them if they protest. No excuses for these pathetic people.

And of course this was your stance with the OWS losers, right?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So Adam Kokesh was arrested in Philadelphia yesterday for "resisting arrest."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKanxgLjmFA]Footage: Adam Kokesh Getting Carried Away by Police at Pro-Marijuana Rally in Philly- May 18, 2013 - YouTube[/ame]

Now I'm not sure how resisting arrest can be the only charge given that there must have been something prior to that they were attempting to arrest him for, but I suppose it doesn't have to make sense.

 

[Billo_Really]

When protests must be lawfully justified on the basis of having a valid reason to protest, then the 1st Amend has just been lost.. You point to two as being justified??? Interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_protest_marches_on_Washington,_D.C.

I didn't say anything about a protest being "lawfully justified". But when you think of a march on Washington by a large number of people, you would think it would be over a significant issue, as in the examples I gave above. Those were very significant issues and warranted a march on Washington.

The march on Washington as described in the OP, is a phoney, made-up issue, by the American mullahs of the NRA. It's whole point is to make the government out to be the enemy. And this, coming from a group who claim to be patriots. Furthermore, I didn't hear any of their big mouths protesting the stripping of our Constitutional rights when the last President was pushing the Patriot and Military Commission's Acts, which basically nullified the Bill of Rights.

If they didn't speak out then, I really don't care to hear anything from them now.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

When protests must be lawfully justified on the basis of having a valid reason to protest, then the 1st Amend has just been lost.. You point to two as being justified??? Interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_protest_marches_on_Washington,_D.C.

I didn't say anything about a protest being "lawfully justified". But when you think of a march on Washington by a large number of people, you would think it would be over a significant issue, as in the examples I gave above. Those were very significant issues and warranted a march on Washington.

The march on Washington as described in the OP, is a phoney, made-up issue, by the American mullahs of the NRA. It's whole point is to make the government out to be the enemy. And this, coming from a group who claim to be patriots. Furthermore, I didn't hear any of their big mouths protesting the stripping of our Constitutional rights when the last President was pushing the Patriot and Military Commission's Acts, which basically nullified the Bill of Rights.

If they didn't speak out then, I really don't care to hear anything from them now.

You clearly don't know anything about Adam Kokesh if you think that's the case.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

So Adam Kokesh was arrested in Philadelphia yesterday for "resisting arrest."

Footage: Adam Kokesh Getting Carried Away by Police at Pro-Marijuana Rally in Philly- May 18, 2013 - YouTube

Now I'm not sure how resisting arrest can be the only charge given that there must have been something prior to that they were attempting to arrest him for, but I suppose it doesn't have to make sense.

Yeah, I saw this. Clearly looks purely political to me. I've seen several different videos of the arrest and he did nothing wrong nor was he doing anything wrong when they grabbed a hold of him.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Moore v. Madigan

Link to opinion:

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/12-1269/12-1269-2012-12-11.pdf

then of course heller

 

[LoudMcCloud]

[ame=http://youtu.be/JFbD2bgC1fI]Alex Jones - Military can respond to civil disturbances! - YouTube[/ame]


In ten minutes ill post a video of an interview of Adam Kokesh's friends.