D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court

[7960]

Originally Posted by hsmith

Look at MD. The only way you can get a concealed handgun permit is if you are rich. Why? Because the only "reason" MD finds acceptable is if you are making large cash deposits at the bank.

link?

nevermind. I found this and will admit I'm wrong.

WeckUpToThees!




but I'll leave this because it pisses me off that my friend and anyone else in that town had to sue to get what the constitution promised him:

because it'd be easy to point out specific areas just about anywhere that have stupid rules. my friend lived in a town in mass and went for his concealed carry license. the police chief denied it because he doesn't think anyone needs to carry. so my friend went to court and sued the police chief, won, and got his license.

it'd be easy to draw the conclusion "only XX people can get a concealed carry license" in that town. that's wrong. only people willing to sue the chief can get a license (btw, suing the chief cost $45 I believe).

without knowing anything about MD i'm going to guess there's something else going on and someone just made the correlation that "only rich people can get a license."

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by 7960

link?

nevermind. I found this and will admit I'm wrong.

WeckUpToThees!




but I'll leave this because it pisses me off that my friend and anyone else in that town had to sue to get what the constitution promised him:

because it'd be easy to point out specific areas just about anywhere that have stupid rules. my friend lived in a town in mass and went for his concealed carry license. the police chief denied it because he doesn't think anyone needs to carry. so my friend went to court and sued the police chief, won, and got his license.

it'd be easy to draw the conclusion "only XX people can get a concealed carry license" in that town. that's wrong. only people willing to sue the chief can get a license (btw, suing the chief cost $45 I believe).

without knowing anything about MD i'm going to guess there's something else going on and someone just made the correlation that "only rich people can get a license."

My cousin was a corrections officer for awhile and he couldn't even get one due to worrying about someone coming after him for reprisal. He was basically told he can only get one AFTER someone comes after him.

In Maryland you must be assaulted or raped FIRST to be able to protect yourself or be rich.

so stupid

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

The history of the 1st amendment is absurd?

Ok

It's fairly irrelevant when dealing with the second amendment. You haven't made a valid argument yet regarding it that I can find. All I'm seeing is smoke and mirrors/off topic posts.

[Donkey®]

I have yet to see ANY valid argument (historical or judicial) that gives the 2nd Amendment ANY other meaning than "the federal government may not disarm any state militias." Court ruling after court ruling says this. When people say "Well if you don't like it then get an amendment in the Constitution", I think they have it completely backwards. Time and time again it's been ruled not as an individual right, but in regards to a militia. If you don't like it, get an amendment.

Before I am told my believe and what time and day I want to burn the Constitution, I will state my wants, wishes and beliefs here...so there's no doubt. I think the DC Ban is ridiculous. I think the Constitution should be changed to specific wording making the right to bear arms an individual right...not a militia situation. I think the only way anything is going to changed is if the Supreme Court ONCE AGAIN decides the 2nd amendment is in regards to a militia...not the individual. If people care enough about it, they'll push for an amendment...if they don't, they won't. I am for REASONABLE license, registration and regulation of firearms. Human beings are morons and I am not of the opinion they can just get everything they want because they are a "superior being." They've shown time and time again they aren't.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I have yet to see ANY valid argument (historical or judicial) that gives the 2nd Amendment ANY other meaning than "the federal government may not disarm any state militias." Court ruling after court ruling says this. When people say "Well if you don't like it then get an amendment in the Constitution", I think they have it completely backwards. Time and time again it's been ruled not as an individual right, but in regards to a militia. If you don't like it, get an amendment.

Before I am told my believe and what time and day I want to burn the Constitution, I will state my wants, wishes and beliefs here...so there's no doubt. I think the DC Ban is ridiculous. I think the Constitution should be changed to specific wording making the right to bear arms an individual right...not a militia situation. I think the only way anything is going to changed is if the Supreme Court ONCE AGAIN decides the 2nd amendment is in regards to a militia...not the individual. If people care enough about it, they'll push for an amendment...if they don't, they won't. I am for REASONABLE license, registration and regulation of firearms. Human beings are morons and I am not of the opinion they can just get everything they want because they are a "superior being." They've shown time and time again they aren't.

Do you think their is an implied "right to privacy" in the bill of rights? In such regards are Roe Wade?

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I have yet to see ANY valid argument (historical or judicial) that gives the 2nd Amendment ANY other meaning than "the federal government may not disarm any state militias." Court ruling after court ruling says this. When people say "Well if you don't like it then get an amendment in the Constitution", I think they have it completely backwards. Time and time again it's been ruled not as an individual right, but in regards to a militia. If you don't like it, get an amendment.

Before I am told my believe and what time and day I want to burn the Constitution, I will state my wants, wishes and beliefs here...so there's no doubt. I think the DC Ban is ridiculous. I think the Constitution should be changed to specific wording making the right to bear arms an individual right...not a militia situation. I think the only way anything is going to changed is if the Supreme Court ONCE AGAIN decides the 2nd amendment is in regards to a militia...not the individual. If people care enough about it, they'll push for an amendment...if they don't, they won't. I am for REASONABLE license, registration and regulation of firearms. Human beings are morons and I am not of the opinion they can just get everything they want because they are a "superior being." They've shown time and time again they aren't.

The Constitution doesn't state that it's a collective right. The plain English of it states otherwise.

I agree it should be amended to the wording of the Washington State constitution, and should include state pre-emption. That would really clear a lot of this up, and quite frankly if the Democrats would support such a thing, they would basically destroy the Republican party for like 50 years because no one would know what to complain about (aside from maybe abortion).

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by thewise1

The Constitution doesn't state that it's a collective right. The plain English of it states otherwise.

I can't agree with this because if it were so plain and obvious, the courts would have at least validated it at least ONCE. And yes, I do look to the Supreme Court and judges for validation...because they are the experts and it's their job.

Originally Posted by thewise1

I agree it should be amended to the wording of the Washington State constitution, and should include state pre-emption. That would really clear a lot of this up, and quite frankly if the Democrats would support such a thing, they would basically destroy the Republican party for like 50 years because no one would know what to complain about (aside from maybe abortion).

Yeah, I think a lot of issues can be cleared up with some clarification on a lot of the amendments. I mean, there's a reason we translate ancient texts such as the bible to language more suitable for current times. Can't use something if you can't understand it to begin with. All this inferred meaning throughout certain amendments is just unnecessary.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by hsmith

Do you think their is an implied "right to privacy" in the bill of rights? In such regards are Roe Wade?

No, I don't. I think this is the exact same situation as the pro-gun people using the 2nd amendment as an individual right. Muddled wording allows too broad of a scope for interpretation.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

No, I don't. I think this is the exact same situation as the pro-gun people using the 2nd amendment as an individual right. Muddled wording allows too broad of a scope for interpretation.

So why does the 2nd amendment mention "the people" in it if the amendment doesn't apply to them?

What is the point of mentioning it then? If it was only reserved for the state or the militia it would have read "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Why would the government restrict itself from regulating itself in an Amendment? It just doesn't make sense on the face of it.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

the right of the people meant white males, and they did not live particularly long, so basically "the people" could all qualify for government service, like a draft, at any time...the people as the founders saw them, could all join the regulated militia and keep and bear arms

women, no
blacks, hells no
anyone with some color, no
the poor, kinda not really...have to be "well-regulated" and firearms were expensive to keep and maintain, let alone be willing to dedicate time to your militia/training

Actually, everyone is considered a member of the militia, because a militia is a citizen army. It is your duty... part of the 'social contract' if you will.

And at the time, the usage of 'well regulated' in military terms meant well equipped.... i.e. a REGULAR army.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Yeah, I think a lot of issues can be cleared up with some clarification on a lot of the amendments. I mean, there's a reason we translate ancient texts such as the bible to language more suitable for current times.

And the text loses something in the translation. I remember learning "thou shalt not kill" like that was the actual commandment, only to later find it should have been "thou shalt not murder." Big difference. I remember pointing out they hypocrisy of a commandment that says "don't kill" when got killed nearly everyone. I remember the answer, "don't question god's will." Well wtf...........the people who translated the book I had got it wrong!

That's why every one of these threads ends up talking about what they meant BACK THEN. Until/unless it's amended, the original document needs to be interpreted using definitions from their time. A militia was just about anyone who wasn't in the army, arms were just about any hand-held guns used by a soldier....that's one of the reasons I think it's ok to say you and I can't have an F-16 or a nuke.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

No, I don't. ... Muddled wording allows too broad of a scope for interpretation.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That's not a right to privacy? How has that been "muddled"??

[RockPusher]

This is really to Donkey, not 7960 ...

Originally Posted by 7960

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That's not a right to privacy? How has that been "muddled"??

Private property = private

having private property entitles privacy.

Private a legal entitlement of property ownership that is transferable through usufruct so that even rentals and borrowed property in your possession are private.

Privacy is a prerequisite for individual liberty and economic freedom.

You cannot eliminate privacy without eliminating individual ownership of property. Privacy is a part of that magic word, "freedom".

You cannot limit privacy without destroying its foundation. To infringe upon it without due process of the 4th amendment is to justify live camera feeds from every room in your house to the ministry of truth.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by 7960

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That's not a right to privacy? How has that been "muddled"??

I thought he was asking about how it pertains to Roe V Wade?

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by 7960

And the text loses something in the translation. I remember learning "thou shalt not kill" like that was the actual commandment, only to later find it should have been "thou shalt not murder." Big difference. I remember pointing out they hypocrisy of a commandment that says "don't kill" when got killed nearly everyone. I remember the answer, "don't question god's will." Well wtf...........the people who translated the book I had got it wrong!

That's why every one of these threads ends up talking about what they meant BACK THEN. Until/unless it's amended, the original document needs to be interpreted using definitions from their time. A militia was just about anyone who wasn't in the army, arms were just about any hand-held guns used by a soldier....that's one of the reasons I think it's ok to say you and I can't have an F-16 or a nuke.

Militias WEREN'T "just about everyone that wasn't in the army." They were Militias...not some random dude with a hunting rifle.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Militias WEREN'T "just about everyone that wasn't in the army." They were Militias...not some random dude with a hunting rifle.

well you are just plain wrong.

....each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia....

Of Arms and the Law: Militia Act of 1792

In 1862 is was changed to include blacks, in 1903 it was changed to include women and expanded the age range........... so as you sit in your chair right now, like it or not, YOU are in a militia.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by 7960

well you are just plain wrong.

....each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia....

Of Arms and the Law: Militia Act of 1792

In 1862 is was changed to include blacks, in 1903 it was changed to include women and expanded the age range........... so as you sit in your chair right now, like it or not, YOU are in a militia.

I am not going to bother to post all the shit I can that says exactly opposite of this...there is no cut and dry answer. Stop pretending like there is. You post your scholars...I post mine...you post your rulings...I post mine. Fruitless. If it were cut and dry there wouldn't be any debate.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

If it were cut and dry there wouldn't be any debate.

On controversial issues, yes there would.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by JaJae

On controversial issues, yes there would.

We're not talking about anything else but this though.