Posted on 10/23/2011 4:59:09 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi
Does the Second Amendment protect anything other than a handgun in the home? When anti-gun laws are challenged in court, should judges uphold repressive ordinances like the District of Columbia’s gun licensing scheme, which forces applicants to spend hundreds of dollars and dozens of hours just to buy an ordinary rifle? These are the questions being fought in the courts right now, in cases backed by the NRA. What answers the courts will provide are far from certain. The ultimate answers will depend on whether or not the next generation of federal judges is appointed by a President who values the Second Amendment.
(Excerpt) Read more at davekopel.org ...
Sorry good buddy, but you are wrong about Maryland. MD has about the same 2nd amend support that NY, MA, NJ, IL, and RI have. The MD political scene is dominated by the liberal democratic party and included in that is their intense hatred of the freedom guaranteed by the second amendment.
You did not read Heller where "arms" are not "any arms" just as the First Amendment does not guarantee the right to speak for any reason.
Here is the salient discussion of "limitations":
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
They consider sawed-off shotguns are "dangerous and unusual weapons".
Your tank and ship arguments are sunk right out of the gate.
The salient point here is that Heller, MacDonald, etc all rest on a single vote in the SCOTUS. If tragedy occurs and we lose a conservative justice, Obama appoints the replacement and your second amendment rights are finished.
Celebrations were premature because all Heller did was start the analysis of the limitations that can be placed on the Second Amendment. Heller stirred up the anti-gun groups, to become more desperate....that includes Obama and partially explains Fast & Furious.
These are VERY dangerous times with a 5-4 majority that is shaky, at best.
If you don't think someone like Obama and his ilk are capable of eliminating a SCOTUS Justice, especially, if electoral defeat is imminent, you are deluded.
Funny, the unconstitutional prohibition took mere days to implement. Why should we "realize" undoing it should take decades? by then it will be the accepted norm for generations.
The salient point here is that Heller, MacDonald, etc all rest on a single vote in the SCOTUS. If tragedy occurs and we lose a conservative justice, Obama appoints the replacement and your second amendment rights are finished.
Celebrations were premature because all Heller did was start the analysis of the limitations that can be placed on the Second Amendment. Heller stirred up the anti-gun groups, to become more desperate....that includes Obama and partially explains Fast & Furious.
These are VERY dangerous times with a 5-4 majority that is shaky, at best.
If you don't think someone like Obama and his ilk are capable of eliminating a SCOTUS Justice, especially, if electoral defeat is imminent, you are deluded.
In the words of the great philosopher, Yoda:
Victory? Victory, you say? Not a victory Heller is. Begun, this war has.
It took generations for the liberals to erode our Second Amendment rights. It is only since 1967 and the infiltration of communism into pockets of this nation that the cause has been accelerated.
What is even more disturbing is that the majority opinion is that "arms" are being defined as those "commonly in use" which does not include sawed-off shotguns and, possibly, machine guns.
Well, the reason shotguns and machine guns are not "commonly in use" is because they are tightly regulated, restricted and banned in some places.
The 1986 machine gun ban stopped the production/conversion of new machine guns for the specific purpose of being "commonly in use".
Something you may not realize. While the overall decision as to whether the DC gun ban was Constitutional or not was a 5-4 win... It was unanimous, both in the majority and dissent that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.
That is very critical in the whole scheme of things.
When SCOTUS found the 2nd Amendment to be protected under the 14th, they opened doors for us big time. You may not realize it but with that decision, elected officials can no longer hide behind their office when sued over the 2nd Amendment.
The game has changed and we will prevail.
Something you may not realize. While the overall decision as to whether the DC gun ban was Constitutional or not was a 5-4 win... It was unanimous, both in the majority and dissent that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.
That is very critical in the whole scheme of things.
When SCOTUS found the 2nd Amendment to be protected under the 14th, they opened doors for us big time. You may not realize it but with that decision, elected officials can no longer hide behind their office when sued over the 2nd Amendment.
The game has changed and we will prevail.
Re-read BCR’s comment with care. It does not “all rest on a single vote in the SCOTUS” because the court is being guided into a minefield of its own devising; should that “single vote” go the wrong way, SCOTUS opens a self-inflicted world of hurt. Those votes do not happen in a vacuum, they have direct and profound & untenable consequences on other sensitive issues. As he wrote, SCOTUS will face an unavoidable decision on NFA: should that “single vote” fail to overturn NFA then poll taxes will become legal - not an option a SCOTUS judge can or will take.
The war has been long under way. Opposing forces have made choices which will soon leave them the option of either surrender or falling off a cliff.
Oh, and if ANY of those “Fast & Furious” items are subject to NFA, the consequences to the perps magnify tenfold.
In 1934, NFA took us from near-total RKBA freedom to most of the restrictions we have now in a very very short time. Prior, you could get a Tommygun mail-order; after, whole categories were banned for all practical purposes (with a tax some 4x the cost of the item) and intense licensing (loosely defined) as a model for others to follow. It may have taken decades/generations for the ripple effects to spread, but dropping that rock did not take long at all.
Your well-understood point amounts to attempting to un-ripple the pond, when the better & faster solution is to drop another rock in.
BTW: listen to BCR. He is...well-versed.
Go back and re-read Heller. Look at the twisted, convoluted decisions that SCOTUS has rendered in the past with regard to firearm rights.
Liberals do not care if they open the door to poll taxes. In fact, they may see those as the means to fight Voter ID.
Deceit and fraud are not outside the scope of liberals, even those on the SCOTUS.
I do not dispute that. I have only disputed the celebrations over Heller.
The battles are engaged....it is not a time for celebration.
Since Heller and McDonald, the lower, Liberal courts have been giving Heller the finger and laughing at SCOTUS. Because Liberals hate Heller they have no intention of enforcing it. Obama has already said he plans to rule by decree.
Convoluted indeed.
Nonetheless, Heller passed, and the dissents agreed with the core point. The ancillary contortions were to avoid explosive tangential consequences, and will not stand up to direct scrutiny.
Other past SCOTUS decisions were more right than many give credit; it was the subsequent interpretation and spin which rendered the environment we are in. (Miller was correct, but ours bought into the spin rather than holding to the actual decision.)
There comes a point where deceit and fraud consume themselves and cannot overcome plain truth.
BCR & I are well aware of your points. We are, nonetheless, optimistic.
There is little to enforce. Heller affirmed that the 2A is an individual right. McDonald incorporated that right under the 14th.
The danger ahead is in defining the limits of that right. It is here that I, and the author, am advising caution for those celebrating and thinking the war is won.
The liberal judges cannot change Heller or McDonald. So, their only hope is to limit the right to single shot pistols used in the home.
Liberals are most dangerous when they are losing. They are losing, but can turn the tide quickly.
This is why it is so critical that we remain united with the NRA, GOA, SAF, JPFO, etc and not turn on each other like dogs.
This is why it is so critial that we unite behind a solid conservative in the primary.
I share your optimism as I have full faith in four of the nine justices. Kennedy is a question-mark.
This is why I urge caution. We have knocked the bees nest out of the tree, but we now have to deal with a swarm of issues.
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/maryland.pdf
The source website gives a tremendous amount of information on the other states, which I find to be a great guideline for those of us who do a lot of traveling...
MD is a “may issue” state,which has made it “somewhat” amiable, if you press the issue, to carry in that state...But it’s up to those who want to jump through those flaming hoops...
there is some more study to be done, but I do not see anything yet that says you can’t keep a loaded firearm in your home, which was almost a conerstone issue with Heller in D.C., if I recall correctly...
Like I said, MD is not a total ogre as far as I can tell when it comes to being whre D.C./Heller wanted to get to...That’s all I was saying...
There are many states where we have it good, but there is always room to improve...Even here in Texas...
Here is what I found on a “firearms” search on the MD Atty generals website...
Yes, a lot of registration issues, types of weapons, but I didn’t immediately see anything restricting posession of a firearm on ones private property (home) for lawful, self-defensive purposes...
Maybe we can find something that knocks that out of the ballpark...
And yes, I did see all the AWB, and other transportation restrictions there as well...but like Isaid, I don’t see anything that says you can’t have one ready to go in the home...
Again I must disagree. In a may issue state, no matter how many hoops you jump through it is up to the police to determine if you get one or not, and I can assure you that no one I know in MD has been able to obtain one.
but I do not see anything yet that says you can’t keep a loaded firearm in your home,
True, but I don't consider this basic minimum as "gun friendly" I take multiple criteria, most of which you listed as determining if a state is anti-gun or not, and I consider Md to be anti-gun on a par with NY, NJ, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.