Skip to comments.Second Amendment applies to carrying guns in cars (Ohio Court of Appeals, State v. Shover)
Posted on 02/10/2014 8:49:32 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVetEdited on 02/10/2014 9:53:38 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
I concur in judgment only on the basis that I would conclude that the individual right to bear arms contained in the Second Amendment extends to motor vehicles….
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
So say two of the three judges on an Ohio Court of Appeals panel, in State v. Shover (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2014) (Carr, J., concurring in the judgment, with Hensal, J., agreeing on this score) (some paragraph breaks added) and generally quite correctly, it seems to me:
I concur in judgment only on the basis that I would conclude that the individual right to bear arms contained in the Second Amendment extends to motor vehicles .
Of course the individual right to keep and bear arms contained in the Second Amendment extends to motor vehicles.
It would seem pretty obvious that the founders didn’t intend to restrict the 2nd to modes of transportation - if they did, would they not have written a clause about horseback/carriages and/or boats/ships - both of which were in common use?
Further, if the military could use methods of transportation but the citizens could not, then it would essentially mute large portions of the right.
Like Josey Wales’ horse wasn’t also carrying his rifle.
Thanks for posting..
Thank you for the post and ping.
Debate should have ended with a reading of the 2nd...’shall NOT be infringed’. No need to every contemplate re: mode of transportation.
Sounds like @ least one judge needs to go buh-bye.
“shall NOT be infringed”
The emphasis needs to be on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, which series of words is insufficiently defined.
If something is not covered by the definition of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, then infringing that something is not an infringement of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”.
So if the Constitution does not say the Gov cannot do a specific something,
they can do anything outside of the specifics?
Maybe you didn't post your complete thoughts. Or forgot the /S tag.
Using MM “logic”, the First Amendment should apply only to the print media, since we didn’t have radio, TV, cable or internet in the 1700s.
Where did that come from? What does it have to do with what I wrote about which is that the emphasis needs to be on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" and the insufficient definition of those words?
I suppose that if a constitution does not say a government cannot do a specific something, that government can do anything outside of that specific thing if the government is otherwise empowered to do so. But all that is beyond what I wrote about.
Unfort., no matter which phrase one begins the ‘debate’ the oligarchy will twist and skew as it needs to keep the $$ flowing.