7th Circuit Court of Appeals holds that the Second Amendment applies outside the home

Monachus Lex ^ | December 11, 2012 | John Pierce

[Peet]

Can we do this in MA next? Can we please, huh? Can we?

---

If you can write the above and are NOT a member of G.O.A.L. I strongly urge you to join/support them. http://www.goal.org

Now to your question: The latest issue of GOAL News documents a shift in strategy. Rather than try to fix (the abominable) CH180 in one bill, they are adopting a piecemeal approach — exactly the method used to chip away our rights will re-instate them.

[Abundy]

although I can't see the 4th Circuit siding with Maryland in the case, if it does then the issue of carrying outside the home and/or concealed carry will end up at SCOTUS due to the different rulings from two different circuits.

If MD loses (and us serfs in MD win) you can bet Gansler will appeal the ruling up for en banc and SCOTUS review...he wants to be governor and must play to his statist base in PG, MONKEY, Baltimore Counties and Balt. City

[Abundy]

I don't see muggers, ex-husbands, or burglars in there anywhere.

What I do see is that "a free State" is what is being defended by the 2nd Amendment.

And we protect that freedom not from muggers, but against usurpation of freedom by governments. The whole Bill of Rights is about securing people's rights AGAINST government.

So, while I agree with the good Judge's outcome, I disagree with his logic. We aren't protecting ourselves from muggers. We're protecting ourselves from excessively self-aggrandizing judges (and legislators and executives)!

respectfully disagree...muggers, rapists, et. al. all negatively impact your freedom

therefore protecting yourself from them is just as important as protecting yourself from tyranny

[Aunt Polgara]

Do these DemoQuacks and libtards who seek to limit gun rights also propose that the right to free speech is limited to the confines of the home.

Well, they already think that religion is only a right within the confines of a church building. :-(

[Aunt Polgara]

muggers, rapists, et. al. all negatively impact your freedom therefore protecting yourself from them is just as important as protecting yourself from tyranny

Yes, but muggers, rapists, et. al. only get us one or two at a time. An evil government can get all of us at once.

[Abundy]

I don’t disagree, just pointing out that the pre-existing right covers both issues, not just one. and that an argument can be made that there really is no difference between the two sets of criminals.