Life After Heller - More lawyers, more guns, some nunchuks, and the 14th Amendment

Reason ^ | May 5, 2009 | Brian Doherty

[ChicagahAl]

This seems to be positive news, though sort of like a left-handed complement.

I've often wondered why a CCW shouldn't also allow someone to carry nunchuks, a blackjack, a knife, a taser, or some other weapon or “arm”, besides a firearm. I suppose the strict interpretation of “arms” would be a firearm, though Revolutionary War officers carried swords or sabers, in addition to pistols, so edged weapons would seem to be "arms".

I'm sure some legal-beagle will set me straight on this....

[Jeff Gordon]

What really frightens me is the thought that our Second Amendment rights ride on the continued good health of five men on the SCOTUS. If any one of them is replaced by Obama the Second Amendment is as good as repealed.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

It is ridiculous for anyone to say that the 2nd amendment only limits federal laws. Allowing state and local governments to ignore the bill of rights makes a joke out of the Constitution. If the Constitution says I can own a gun in Florida, it says that I can own that gun in New York, or California. Legal opinions to the contrary are hogwash!

[SWAMPSNIPER]

That is when the Kozinsky rule kicks in!

[CurlyDave]

I've often wondered why a CCW shouldn't also allow someone to carry nunchuks, a blackjack, a knife, a taser, or some other weapon or “arm”, besides a firearm. I suppose the strict interpretation of “arms” would be a firearm, though Revolutionary War officers carried swords or sabers, in addition to pistols, so edged weapons would seem to be "arms".

In Oregon, the license actually issued is a "concealed handgun license", and the license course explains that this mean one can only carry a handgun. As a guy who firmly believes that a handgun is a far superior weapon to nunchuks, etc. this has never felt burdensome. OTOH, Nordyke is now the law of the land in oregon, so I expect to see challenges.

To me, the most interesting part of the 9th circuit decision is that they actually came right out and admitted that Heller squarely overturned Hickman. Hickman was a case brought against the State of California which challenged the arbitrary nature of California's "may issue" concealed weapons law. The ruling essentially said that because the RKBA was a collective right, Hickman had no standing to challenge the law. Well, that is no longer true, and I am hoping to see serious challenges to may-issue very soon, and I expect it will be struck down.

Now this is not an automatic victory, CA could just become a no-issue state, but too many minor politicians like their guns that the masses can not have.

Anyway, I am seeing a glimmer of hope that concealed carry in CA my be on the horizon.

[angkor]

Same in Virginia. You could be legally and with CCW be carrying your .44 magnum but still be arrested for that switchblade (or any blade) in your pocket.

[William Tell]

ChicagahAl said: I suppose the strict interpretation of “arms” would be a firearm, though Revolutionary War officers carried swords or sabers, in addition to pistols, so edged weapons would seem to be "arms".

Anti-gunners have attempted to redefine the word "arms" to mean only those weapons that a person could "bear". It's convenient for some of their purposes, but false.

I have challenged other posters several times to provide ANY federal law respecting ANY weapon during the first century of our republic's existence. Then, as now, "arms" includes every tool useful to a military in defeating an enemy.

Of recent interest were the various SALT treaties, which term stands for "Strategic ARMS Limitation Treaty". This use of the word "arms" to refer to nuclear weapons is perfectly consistent with the meaning intended by our Founders.

The Constitution, as originally written, included mechanisms for Congress to authorize the use of privately-owned warships against our nation's enemies. There is no indication that this reflected an intent to have the government supply such warships. The "arms" aboard such privately-owned ships were already in place to repel pirates. And the arms most certainly were not limited to only those firearms that a person could carry.

Those who would argue that nuclear arms are not "arms" as mentioned in the Second Amendment are simply denying the necessity to modify the Constitution if and when the need arises.

[William Tell]

Jeff Gordon said: "If any one of them is replaced by Obama the Second Amendment is as good as repealed."

It would be bad, but I don't think it would be that bad.

It has taken over seventy years to address the nonsensical readings of US vs. Miller. The Miller decision unreasonably limited the right to weapons USEFUL TO A MILITIA. Anti-gunners since then have purposely mis-read it to limit the right to MEMBER OF AN ORGANIZED MILITIA.

The Heller decision clarifies that individuals are protected and broadens the purposes to include self-defense.

Even the Supreme Court knows that the 1994 election handed Congress to the Republicans because of gun control. A Supreme Court decision REVERSING Heller could very well start a civil war. And for what? So politicians can claim that they are doing something about crime?

An Obama Court will probably content itself to letting bad decisions stand and attempting to reverse good decisions so that they go no farther than Heller dictated.

[neverdem]

Now He Has the Hammer - Barack Obama plays whack-a-mole with the wingnuts. Very funny, if not so sad.

(Vanity) Mark Twain, and Pandemic Flu, or, Mongolian Flustered Cluck Great primer on virology, politics & propaganda!

An Obsolete Alliance (Get Us Out of NATO) Provocative, to say the least

US Foreign Debt jumps to 35% of GDP

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[neverdem]

Strategic ARMS Limitation Treaty is the best of many good points you just made on the thread. Are you a lawyer?

[William Tell]

neverdem said: "Are you a lawyer? "

Nope. Engineer.

[Joe Brower]

[Repeal The 17th]

“That is when the Kozinsky rule kicks in!”
-
What’s that?

[SWAMPSNIPER]

“The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once”.
Judge Alex Kozinsky

[Repeal The 17th]

Judge Alex Kozinsky
-
I need to read up on that guy.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"I've often wondered why a CCW shouldn't also allow someone to carry nunchuks, a blackjack, a knife, a taser, or some other weapon or “arm”, besides a firearm."

The term CCW is a general term. The actual license in Pennsylvania is an LTCF (License to carry firearm), hence it doesn't give you a permission to carry a switchblade.

[Cboldt]

-- It has taken over seventy years to address the nonsensical readings of US vs. Miller. --

Only to have it replaced with a different nonsensical reading, this time by Scalia no less. Scalia reads the 2nd amendment as permitting the government to ban the private possession of M-16's, based directly on a dishonest construction of Miller.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"I suppose the strict interpretation of “arms” would be a firearm, though Revolutionary War officers carried swords or sabers, in addition to pistols, so edged weapons would seem to be "arms"

I've tried to go to the writings of the founders to get some guidance on this. The only founder that goes into specificity that I know of is Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania congressman and in the first Congress so he actually voted on the Bill of Rights. When writing in a Philadelphia newspaper he said that Americans should have available every terrible weapon of the soldier. As you said, that would be rifles, handguns, swords etc... I don't think it means nuclear weapons, cannons or crew served weapons because your basic soldier did not have access to that. Reasonable people can disagree on this I suppose.

I think in the Miller case, the Supreme Court tried to use this standard though they came to the wrong conclusion. Their standard was what weapon would a soldier/militiaman be using. However, they incorrectly believed that a shotgun is not a weapon of a soldier/militiaman so it could be regulated/banned. It was a wrong conclusion because a shotgun has indeed been used many times in combat by soldiers for varying reasons.

[MarkL]

O’Scannlain declared that the Second Amendment is not one of the “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” precisely because the right is one of “those general civil rights independent of the Republic’s existence,” and not a peculiar possession of Americans as Americans. Peculiarly, it is too important to be imposed on the states via the 14th Amendment by the "privileges or immunities" clause.

Only a lawyer could come up with this sort of crap... How can someone say that this is a "general civil right" while nearly every government on the face of the earth (and certainly, every oppressive one) has strictly limited the possession of arms. Can somebody explain this to me? It seem to be saying that the right to bear arms is a "natural right" belonging to all people, independent of the founding of America, and therefore, isn't protected by the Constitution... So this sort of thought seems to directly go AGAINST the 9th & 10th Amendments, as the right to self defense by the use of arms is seen as a universal right, just not one of the protections enumerated by the Constitution.

ARRGGHHHH!!!! It's like the "Chewbacca Defense!" My head hurts!

Mark