Skip to comments.Two Federal Appeals Courts Put Limits on Gun Rights
Posted on 12/06/2012 7:16:41 PM PST by neverdem
Two Federal Appeals Courts Put Limits on Gun Rights
» by NewsWatch on December 2nd, 2012 Permalink
The NY applicants says on applications that unknown assailant(s) have made attempts to mug and put selves in jeopardy. NY is now in the negative position to prove applicants are wrong.
Better: NY passes a law that says shall issue.
But the thrilled-bent youngsters, age 18 to 21, are old enough to go to war WITH GUNS. Kids...we’re talking about kids, right?
Now that we have states which will be legally sanctioning gay marriages, those unions will have to be respected even in states which do not administer homo unions. Once that is inevitably litigated, there is really no reason a licensed right-to-carry citizen of, say Texas, shouldn’t move to New York and demand similar reciprocity.
The criminal defense attorney of any "relatively immature" individual between 18 and 21 should use this case to argue his/her client cannot be tried as an adult.
You're either an adult with all the Rights and responsibilities that come with it under the Constitution, or you are a juvenile. IMHO (not a lawyer nor play one on TV).
our local judge is an NRA Life Member and still issues CW permits
Local elections matter.
The Huffington Puffers are more than eager to bow down to any court ruling — unless it goes against them. And these haven’t hit the highest appellate level possible either. B.S. should be called on their willfully cynical game.
i was standing on my front porch talking to a friend while screwing down an EOTech on my SOCOM when a woman walked up with a clipboard and ask me if i'd sign a petition for him to run for judge, i said "sure, i went to school with him" she put the clipboard on the rifle and i signed it
she was more surprised that i went to school with him than she was at me holding a rifle, in fact, she never batted an eye, she simply smiled, said thank you, and left...
i guess that's part of the reason i live here
What part of fundamental, inalienable right do they not get? The right to defend ones self is perhaps the most basic one there is - it allows us to (try to) ensure our continued existence. The right to keep and bear arms as a means of doing that is so fundamental the Founding Fathers of our Country enshrined it in the 2nd Amendment. Ok, not the first thing, but the second out of ten. What they recognized is that the right to self defense is inalienable, and firearms are so important to this that they wanted a guarantee that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the government.
That is a subtle but important distinction that would-be gun grabbers gloss over. The 2nd Amendment does not give nor grant us any rights. What is given/granted can be taken away. What the 2nd Amendment states is that the government shall not infringe on that fundamental right.
Consider the 1st Amendment, loved, used, and abused by so-called artists to shock and offend. (personally I think when you have to go for shock value, your "art" has no other intrinsic value and you're a poor excuse for an artist) But consider if the 1st Amendment was attacked by the courts and would-be "speech-grabbers" like the 2nd Amendment is:
Ridiculous right? And don't even get me started on religion side of the 1st Amendment. So why is it that people acquiesce to these attacks on the 2nd Amendment? I guarantee you that without the 2nd Amendment, we would not have the others either for very long.
And still can’t get a beer until they’re over 21, even on base.
Choose your battles wisely.
I’m not too thrilled with 18 yr. olds drinking watered down beer.
Mostly because I remember when I did.
I enlisted at 17, during Nam, so, no lectures necessary, regarding “if/then”.
--and they vote -far too much for leftists...
>> Militant gun advocates and firearms industry lobbies will be surprised to learn ...
Imagine that. Militant gun advocates can actually learn.
What a jackass.
well now here’s an unbiased report- “Militant gun advocates”? lol
[[Militant gun advocates and firearms industry lobbies will be surprised to learn that there are indeed limits on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and that there is no fundamental right to carry handguns in public.]]
Really, and just where are those limits again? No fundamental right to carry in public? Really,? And where is the prohibition against carrying in public again? Oh that’s right, there is NONE!
[[New York can require applicants for concealed-carry gun license to articulate a need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community,]]
Hmmmm- “Your honor, I beleive that beign shot at 10 times i nthe last month makes me more eligible than someone who’s only been shot at 7 times- I beleive that witnessign 15 muggings in my neighborhood makes me more eiligible than someone hwo has only witnessed 14”
Cripes- EVERYONE has a RIGHT to protect themselves agaisnt deadly force by usign deadly force- and everyoen has a RIGHT to carry preventative measures to ensure that we remain protected agaisnt ANY potential future threat- Militant anti-gun advocates MUST prove that ordinary citizens do not have a right to self protection- and so far they can NOT prove that- all they can do is claim that all we have to do is call a policeman and that police are the only folks allowed to carry guns-
Thios needs to be settled in the supreme court once and for all- do we have a right to defend ourselves agaisnt terror and threat to our lives or not?
He’s not as smart as his brother Jethro.
[[Your foolishness is on display for everyone to see.]]
That didn’t stop john roberts of hte supreme court- He shirked his oath before God and man and issued a ruling that violated our rights, and gave our dear leader to any danm thing he wants now under the false pretense that ‘the supreme court is not in business to protect citizens agaisnt bad choices’ Really? Because I was under the impressio n that the supreme court was our last and only hope of protection against a rogue goernment that tramples our rights- and now apparently that is the end of it
[[The right to defend ones self is perhaps the most basic one there is]]
They KNOW that but are hell bent on takign that right away from us- if they can’t take it away directly, they take it away indirectly by making it nearly impossible to obtain a gun or own certain guns- They falsely claim that that right was only for militias
[[What the 2nd Amendment states is that the government shall not infringe on that fundamental right.]]
Again, their FALSE claim is that that fundamental right is only for militias=- despite the constitution neve4r mentioning that it is only for militias- the ,left has been desperately tryign to make the claim stick, but they have no evidence that that is what the constitution says- they can’t even prove that we don’t have a fundamental right and that our government- whether state OR federal, can NOT infringe on that right.
I don’t know how this hasn’t been settledi nthe supreme court yet- the anitgunners have NO proof that the consitution was talkign only abotu militias-
I'd love to see a Judge nod in the affirmative on that one. It would kill that argument permanently and strengthen 2A beyond the ability to chip away at it.
Militant gun advocates and firearms industry lobbies will be surprised to learn that there are indeed limits on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and that there is no fundamental right to carry handguns in public
Not nearly as surpirsied as the men that wrote the Constituion would be!
Then 18 to 21 year olds should be ineligible for military service.
18, 19 and 20 year olds have recently proven they are very dangerous when armed with a Ballot, much less a Gun.
With a Ballot, they have elected people who will take my Money, my Heath Care Choices and my Freedom away from me.
I can defend myself against a punk with a Gun.
I think God created such deep Oceans to hold the bodies of all the Journalists, Lawyers and Politicians. It’s up to us to put them there.
I remember a time during WWII in my hometown that some ‘protecting’ religious mothers went to city hall and got an ordnance passed that said no person under 21 years of age could shoot pool or drink or buy beer or play the pinball machines. I was working in a store/cafe that allowed all. My brother a very respected HS sports star and graduate had just received his draft notice and didn’t as for many other young men going to war did not agree. The situation boiled to the point where my brother as one of a bunch ready with their service draft took to the main streets and carried from establishments the pinball machines and slot machines and deposited them on the county courthouse lawn. The mayor was called into a midnight meeting at city hall. The young draftees vented their anger that they were being sent to fight and die for pleasures being denied. I don’t remember many of the details of the meeting. I had closed shop where I worked without incident except getting the word out that if anyone attempted to invade our business I was waiting with a cue stick. I don’t recall all that went on that evening/early morning but I do recall that things were changed for draftees as long they would be going to to draft centers and with no charges filed. My brother was killed on Okinawa and I sometimes muse as to what we could have reminisced about that situation and my being only four months from joining up possibly with his unit.
That’s close to how it is in Switzerland. The main difference is that not only is every man required to have a rifle, but younger guys are provided with an automatic, not semiautomatic, military rifle. That country has a very low homicide rate and has not been invaded in many centuries.
We used to be like that here in the US, except with a higher homicide rate.
The point being, the definition of a Militia is that it is the whole of the people. That's why I can't understand why anyone would take that route for 2A issues.
It doesn't make any sense unless they just want to lose. There are lots of early American militia acts where every able-bodied male is required to keep on-hand a rifle and a number of cartridges for Militia duty.
Since that was the intent of the Amendment, it seems to me that a good lawyer could argue that successfully and eliminate that as an argument permanently and enshrine a second Right Of The People with regard to 2A.
I get into this with liberals all the time and point out to them the Militia statutes of their own States. Each State has Militia laws on the books. Some for an infantry militia - some also include a naval militia. But each and every US State has those laws on the books, even Hawaii, California, New York, and MA.
It causes them to twist into knots when you say, "See! See! Your Governor can call you up and demand you furnish your own gun. You DO have a suitable Militia weapon, right?"
Although the third looks like it targets George iii practice of housing troops in private dwellings, the real target was Louis XIV's practice of housing troops in private dwellings to force the inhabitants to attend the church of HIS choice.
[[Wouldn’t a nice antidote to the “Militia” argument simply be to say that anyone can be called up at any time for Militia duty and because it is a Militia — they are REQUIRED to provide their OWN FIREARM to serve?]]
And be required to know how to use it just like hte swedes are required to own and know how to use one-
[[I’d love to see a Judge nod in the affirmative on that one. It would kill that argument permanently and strengthen 2A beyond the ability to chip away at it]]
Which is why I don’t understand the NRA- they should have lawyers smart enough to present a rock solid case that it IS aN American’s right to own a firearm and that the ‘militia’ claim is bunk, and even IF the militia claim were true, then every man and woman should own a gun because we might be called to service at any point and should know how to use a firearm without having to be taught on the job as it were-