Two Federal Appeals Courts Put Limits on Gun Rights

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence ^ | December 2nd, 2012 | December 2nd, 2012

[neverdem]

Two Federal Appeals Courts Put Limits on Gun Rights
» by NewsWatch on December 2nd, 2012 Permalink

By LARRY BODINE
Editor in Chief/Lawyers.com

Larry Bodine

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.

• New York can require applicants for concealed-carry gun license to articulate a need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community, as the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled on November 27. Kachalsky v. City of Westchester, No. 11-3642. A simple desire to carry a concealed weapon for self-protection isn’t enough.
• The U.S. government can prohibit gun dealers from selling handguns to minors, according to a Fifth Circuit ruling on October 25. See NRA vs. ATF, No. 11-10959. The NRA argued that 11,000 of its members, aged 18 to 21, were unjustly denied their Second Amendment right to buy guns. But the risk of violent crime committed by immature or thrill-bent youngsters is too great, the court said. So the government can prohibit gun sales to crazy people, criminals — and kids.

Gun industry lobbies like the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation have been suing states and cities across the country to push their agenda that the Second Amendment “does not stop at one’s doorstep” and that there is an unlimited right to carry handguns in public. So far, they are shooting blanks.

Read the full article and comment at
The Huffington Post.

[Alaska Wolf]

The U.S. government can prohibit gun dealers from selling handguns to minors, according to a Fifth Circuit ruling on October 25. See NRA vs. ATF, No. 11-10959. The NRA argued that 11,000 of its members, aged 18 to 21

Then 18 to 21 year olds should be ineligible for military service.

[Kickass Conservative]

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.

[noinfringers2]

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.

[expat2]

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.

[superloser]

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?"

[muawiyah]

The first three amendments are inextricably linked. There's thousands of years of history behind the First, but actually only a few hundred behind the Second ~ to wit, the extension of the right to keep and bear arms to those of other than noble birth ~ and about 100 to the third ~ which was the right to NOT provide room and board to the king's military.

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.

[CottShop]

[[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-