Skip to comments.Lock and Load?
Posted on 06/29/2010 1:48:20 PM PDT by neverdem
One of the most illuminating questions in respect of the Supreme Courts ruling on the right to keep and bear arms is whether it should be applauded by the liberals or by conservatives or both. The court, in a case called McDonald v. Chicago, followed a ruling two years ago, in a case called District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court said that the federal government could not infringe the rights vouched safe by the Second Amendment. In the latest case it extended that logic, deciding that the Second Amendment does apply to the states and municipalities. As in Heller, it stopped short of saying there could be no regulation of guns. But it did say that the Second Amendment protects Americans from interference by all levels of government.
In this sense it continues a process known as incorporation, in which the Bill of Rights, which was originally intended to restrict only the federal government, is extended via the 14th Amendment to restrict the states and local governments from interfering with the peoples rights as well. But is that a right-wing idea or a left-wing one? After all, the idea of states rights is thought of as a conservative idea, and the process of incorporation uses the 14th Amendment to limit what the states can do. But McDonald is a case in which the four more liberal members of the court Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens, and Sotomayor all dissented and said that the second of the 10 amendments that make up the bill of rights should not apply to the states and that the states should be able to do what they want to.
In any event, what an astonishing thing to see Chicago warning residents not to exercise the rights the Supreme Court just...
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
We really need to get better at countering this kind of BS.
That's not true. I doubt that you're familiar with the editorial attitude of the NY Sun. They're quite conservative. They used to be a broadsheet on weekdays, IIRC. Now it's a weekly online, but it's still conservative. Check their homepage.
“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.”
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;...”
Can’t get much clearer than that once the “Militia” history is understood. In fact one can argue the 2nd amendment is sufficient - it’s hard to argue with “shall not be infringed”. Seems to me here in CA that telling me I can’t carry openly or concealed is infringing on my right to “bear arms”.
The expression isn’t about locking the action but to locking the safety. On old flintlocks you had to put the lock all the way down on the frizzen for safety in order to load until you got to the part of putting powder in the pan, or a cap on the nipple in the case of percussion arms, the lock was then put into the “half cock” position, which gave rise to the expression, “Don’t go off half cocked”. On most military long arms it is possible to engage the safety before loading the firearm. On the range the person in charge gives the order to “lock and load” at which time the shooters engage the safeties and then load the piece.
You are correct - I am not familiar with the editorial attitide of this newspaper. And I want to thank you for making a point that encouraged me to re-read the article and think about it again.
Doing so - I still don't really like how the states rights versus conservative principles are briefly presented. That said, on second, and third reading - particularly with your help identifying a different perspective to view from, I am beginning to get a better appreciation of their point.
I am not too proud to admit that my first read, impression, and reaction might have been a bit lopsided in this case. Still not exactly sure if that is the case, but can better appreciate what might be better presented as an effort to provoke thought rather than an attack.
I appreciate your pointing this out - we are only as good so far as we are willing to fix our imperfections and challenge our opinions.
That's why I changed my response as follows:
Initially, it was: "That's paranoid nonsense."
After second thought it was: "That's nonsense," with an explanation.
Finally, it was: "That's not true." I try to correct misunderstanding with an explanation when I can.
MCDONALD, OTIS, ET AL. v. CHICAGO, IL I haven't finished Alito's opinion.
P.S. I've received satisfactory explanations for the command, Lock and Load.
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
The whole idea of “incorporation” is somewhat of a fraud.
Outside of the original 13 States, any state that joins the union should accept the rules. And the rules are the Constitution and all the amendments.
Thanks for the explanations. Very interesting.
The old retired DI who taught a bunch of us 12 year olds to shoot NRA smallbore used to say Load and Lock. Almost all of us were shooting single-shot .22 bolt guns.
That old program was a great thing. You’d get badges and medals at various points as your scores went up in the various shooting positions, and you’d get your mom to sew them on your shooting vest. Fun stuff.
What's the origin of that bass ackwards statement? A round has to be loaded into the action of a firearm before the action can be locked.I see you got your answer :-)
But let me add that 'Lock & Load also would pertain to a Bolt Action Mauser, like the K-98, or the 'Modern' Yugo 48 & 48A.
The Safety on the Bolt has three positions:Pretty sure the 03 Springfield has the same 'Lock & Load' procedure. And many other bolt action Rifles. A lot was 'ripped off' the Mauser design.
- Horizontal to the Left - Bolt is 'Locked' and can't pull trigger, its also 'Locked'
- Straight up - Bolt is 'unlocked', but Trigger is still 'Locked'. This is your loading position.
- Horizontal to the Right - Bolt and trigger Unlocked and ready to fire.
And here's something I found on the 3 Position 'Mauser' Safety and its advantages:
Position One (Right) = boom!Paul Mauser was one smart dude, like Germany's John Browning.
Position Two (Up) = You can clear the chamber but the firing pin is still blocked from forward movement.
Postion Three (Left) = no boom, and and the action won't cycle, which is good because twigs and such can't pry your bolt open without you're knowing it. The firing pin is physically blocked from forward movement.
This ought to put the lie to Kagan's statements that politics shouldn't enter in to SCOTUS decisions.
How can some of the 10 Amendments (s/b capitalized) apply, but the 2nd not?
We need two more Justice Thomsases, but for that we need a majority in the Senate.
Keep the eye on the prize, FRiend.
Yes, the “reasonable” infringements argument is made up of nothing. It is utter nonsense.
They pretend we cannot read for ourselves. Sadly most don’t.
I’ve been reminding family and friends to read the Declaration and the Constitution, especially the Amendments this holiday. We’re doing it in our home.
Imagine if for the last several decades at least once a year every American read those two documents. We’d not be where we are today.
Thanks for the ping!
And you did it well.
Always. One should always be prepared to defend one’s self, their family, their property, their treasury, their health and well bEing, their liberty, and their life against any criminal tyrant that would threaten thrum.
I do not care if the tyrant is a local criminal, a druggie, a foreign criminal, a foreign nation or terrorist, or rogues and marxists and their enablers in our own government at any level. That last one is really what the 2nd amendment is all about.
An unloaded gun in a locked footlocker will not be much good in the moment of crisis.
Thanks for your comment. I hope you’re having a speedy recovery.