Cases lining up to ask Supreme Court to clarify Second Amendment rights

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

The Brady Bunch is doing their best to paint their recent losses as wins...


Cases lining up to ask Supreme Court to clarify Second Amendment rights - The Washington Post

 

[indykid]

Think of the money that could be saved, if the governments at all levels that were elected of the people, by the people and for the people would read the words: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and not the words: The right of the people to keep and bear arms while forming a militia shall not be infringed.

Only one wording is correct. And it says nothing about barrel length, overall length, number of rounds per trigger pull, number of grips, how loud they are or anything else other than "shall not be infringed".

 

[Coaster]

What "indykid" said...

 

[2A_Tom]

It certainly does clarify barrel length, number of rornds per trigger pull, number of rounds magazine capacity, (have you seen the new surefire 100 & 60 round mags) the maximum barrel diamiter and all other paramiters ehen it states "shall not be infringed."

Shall not infringe: future tense, absolutly at no time ever.
Same phrasee used in 9 of the Ten Commandments.
BTW they don't believe the bible either.

 

[NYFelon]

Lot's of people don't believe the bible. What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

 

[ultraspec]

Think of the money that could be saved, if the governments at all levels that were elected of the people, by the people and for the people would read the words: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and not the words: The right of the people to keep and bear arms while forming a militia shall not be infringed.

Only one wording is correct. And it says nothing about barrel length, overall length, number of rounds per trigger pull, number of grips, how loud they are or anything else other than "shall not be infringed".

Exactly! I repped you for thispost. I couldnt agree more. I hope people keep winning these cases. Im hoping one day someone challenges and overturns IL's foid law as well. I dont think anyone should be required to have a foid card to buy ammo or guns. Everytime you buy a gun you are subject to a background even with the foid so whats the difference. in having a card or not.

Illinois state police is required BY LAW to process FOID's within 30 days and they are currently 60+ days behind so they can even comply with their own bs laws. I see IN and IL disregard guns owners' rights on a continous basis and it makes me sick.

 

[John Galt]

Indiana State Constitution​

Article I Section 32. - The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

The Bill of Rights​

Amendment II - 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.

What is so hard to understand and exactly what needs clarified? Our guns rights are recognized and protected by these statements in such a fashion that a rational 7th grader could tell you what they mean. The problem is that society has degenerated to the point that we tolerate a judicial system that is more concerned with past interpretations of the law than what the law actually says. Every elected official in America swears an oath TO THE CONSTITUTION and not its interpretation of it or "Constitutional law". The Constitution means what it says and there are ways to change it, and they're called Amendments, but until then, it means what it says.
"Time makes more converts than reason." - Thomas Paine/ Common Sense

 

[ultraspec]

Indiana State Constitution​

Article I Section 32. - The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

The Bill of Rights​

Amendment II - 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.

What is so hard to understand and exactly what needs clarified? Our guns rights are recognized and protected by these statements in such a fashion that a rational 7th grader could tell you what they mean.

IMHO its because they think that they are better than alot of us and really need to restrict us or pass laws to protect us, and that the laws of long ago dont apply to today. Vote them out when it comes time if they want to restrict gun owners rights.

 

[ViperJock]

IMHO its because they think that they are better than alot of us and really need to restrict us or pass laws to protect us, and that the laws of long ago dont apply to today. Vote them out when it comes time if they want to restrict gun owners rights.

This. Someone rep the man. Apparently I have been a rep stalker.

 

[1911Shooter]

Done ViperJock

 

[eric001]

After reading the OP's linked article, I have to admit that I'm horribly confused. Lower courts also seem to be confused about the 2nd Amendment, which is what saddens and confuses me as well.

I guess if the Amendment just read "right to keep arms" I could see where these court decisions are coming from... But in every rendition I've read so far, nobody has YET removed "and bear" from the phrase "keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Hence the source of my confusion with why these courts can't seem to figure it out: are they reading a whole different version than what every copy says in every location I've ever found?? Are they somehow more "in the know" and someone somewhere has passed another amendment or altered the original 2nd Amendment to remove that pesky phrasing, and I just am too ignorant to know about it since I'm not a lawyer or a judge???

Or is it that regardless of legal training, the English language is STILL the English language, and these judges are simply ignoring what they don't wish to see in our Constitution??? In that case, it seems that they are ALREADY "on the forefront of the law" and making law rather than following it.

 

[Harry]

Indiana State Constitution​

Article I Section 32. - The people shall have a right to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, for the defense of themselves and the State.

Why Not!

 

[Kutnupe14]

It should revert back to a state by state issue. Let those that don't want people to have guns live in their own states and be sheeple.

 

[John Galt]

After reading the OP's linked article, I have to admit that I'm horribly confused. Lower courts also seem to be confused about the 2nd Amendment, which is what saddens and confuses me as well.

I guess if the Amendment just read "right to keep arms" I could see where these court decisions are coming from... But in every rendition I've read so far, nobody has YET removed "and bear" from the phrase "keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Hence the source of my confusion with why these courts can't seem to figure it out: are they reading a whole different version than what every copy says in every location I've ever found?? Are they somehow more "in the know" and someone somewhere has passed another amendment or altered the original 2nd Amendment to remove that pesky phrasing, and I just am too ignorant to know about it since I'm not a lawyer or a judge???

Or is it that regardless of legal training, the English language is STILL the English language, and these judges are simply ignoring what they don't wish to see in our Constitution??? In that case, it seems that they are ALREADY "on the forefront of the law" and making law rather than following it.

That's why we have to get away from this "Constitutional law" horse and get back to WHAT THE CONSTITUTION ACTUALLY SAYS!

 

[PA2Ind]

Anyone else find it alarming that in DC V. heller it was only a 5-4 victory?

 

[EvilBlackGun]

With all due respect, Get your atheistic-sounding head out ...

... and read his post 5 times before commenting again. YOU are the one hinting here that The Bible and The Constitution are related. But OUR MAJOR PROBLEM is that SCOTUS has said, "The Constitution does NOT mean what it says; The Constitution Means WHAT WE SAY it means." IMHO

Lot's of people don't believe the bible. What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

 

[ThrottleJockey]

It should revert back to a state by state issue. Let those that don't want people to have guns live in their own states and be sheeple.

NO, it was never a state issue. The simple fact that it is included in the BOR as the second amendment means that it is protected from the states. Read the 10th amendment, it states all things NOT covered in the COTUS are up to the states.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

... and read his post 5 times before commenting again. YOU are the one hinting here that The Bible and The Constitution are related. But OUR MAJOR PROBLEM is that SCOTUS has said, "The Constitution does NOT mean what it says; The Constitution Means WHAT WE SAY it means." IMHO

This in and of itself should be grounds for removal. It states very clearly that they have NO intention of actually doing their assigned job of interpreting the COTUS but would rather use their post to legislate from the bench.

 

[Kutnupe14]

NO, it was never a state issue. The simple fact that it is included in the BOR as the second amendment means that it is protected from the states. Read the 10th amendment, it states all things NOT covered in the COTUS are up to the states.

Sorry dude, that is flat out wrong. The BORs is a restriction on federal power, not state. Your incorrectly citing 10th Amendment. The 10th indicates that powers NOT granted to the Federal Govt (ie the right to bear arms) or not prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states and the people. There is no prohibition (regarding the 2nd) to the states, only the feds. The actual incorporation of the 2nd Amendment did not occur, surprisingly enough, until 2010.

Read up on:
United States v. Cruikshank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Presser v. Illinois - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Miller v Texas

in which individuals lost there claim that the 2nd applied to states. Incorporation solved this issue once and for all.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Sorry dude, that is flat out wrong. The BORs is a restriction on federal power, not state. Your incorrectly citing 10th Amendment. The 10th indicates that powers NOT granted to the Federal Govt (ie the right to bear arms) or not prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states and the people. There is no prohibition (regarding the 2nd) to the states, only the feds. The actual incorporation of the 2nd Amendment did not occur, surprisingly enough, until 2010.

Read up on:
United States v. Cruikshank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Presser v. Illinois - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Miller v Texas

in which individuals lost there claim that the 2nd applied to states. Incorporation solved this issue once and for all.

Kutnupe, I have to disagree. The powers not granted the government in the Constitution nor denied by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

"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."

Compare and contrast the 2A, above, with the language of the 1A:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or abridging the free exercise thereof..."

"Congress shall make no law..." is specific to the fedgov, denying the power to abridge the 1A protections, but is silent with respect to the states.

"...the right...shall not be infringed (period)", OTOH, categorically denies the power to infringe on the RKBA to any governmental entity, thus, that power is not granted to the fed and is denied by it to the states, thus, that power is reserved to the people alone.

There was no case law that incorporated the 2A against the states or that defined it as protecting an individual right until 2010, true, but that the 2A applied to the states from the moment it was ratified is made clear by the 10A. That the Court didn't rule on it is in part due to no cases being brought but the plain language as written is, IMHO, incontrovertible.

Blessings,
Bill