Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court denies gun rights cases
SCOTUSblog ^ | February 24, 2014 | Lyle Denniston

Posted on 02/24/2014 3:33:40 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian

The Supreme Court refused on Monday, as it has done repeatedly in recent years, to settle the issue of whether Second Amendment rights to have a gun extend beyond the home. The Court, without comment, denied three new petitions — two filed by the National Rifle Association — seeking clarification on the scope of an individual’s right to have a gun for personal self-defense. In other orders, the Court did not accept any new cases for review, although it did hold over a number of cases it had examined for potential review.

Since the Court first ruled nearly six years ago that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to have a gun, it has issued only one further ruling — expanding that right so that it applies nationwide, to state and local gun control laws, as well as to federal laws. But, without exception, the Justices have turned aside every potential sequel, essentially leaving it to lower courts to continue to sort out variations on the right.

One thing seemed clear from the denial of review of two of the new cases, the NRA’s challenges: the Court is not, as yet, ready to stop lower courts from creating an entirely new group in society with less than full gun rights. In those cases, it was youths aged eighteen to twenty years old.

(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; scotus; secondamendment

1 posted on 02/24/2014 3:33:40 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

SCOTUS ping.


2 posted on 02/24/2014 3:34:43 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
.. shall NOT be infringed.

Settled Law, endowed by our Creator

period

3 posted on 02/24/2014 3:37:49 PM PST by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Once the SCOTUS is pack with liberal Justices, they will then hear the cases.


4 posted on 02/24/2014 3:38:25 PM PST by GregoTX (Keep Calm and Cruz On)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

The damn cowards of SCROTUS cannot even uphold the 2nd Amendment but they are more than happy to shove Socialist health care down our throats.


5 posted on 02/24/2014 3:42:28 PM PST by CivilWarBrewing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

This is probably deliberate silence on the part of the SCOTUS. They know well what they are dealing with in the other two branches. This issue won’t go away.


6 posted on 02/24/2014 3:43:17 PM PST by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FReepers

Click The Pic To Donate

Support FR, Donate Monthly If You Can

Less Than 9.5K To Go And The Freepathon Is Over!


7 posted on 02/24/2014 3:54:36 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA

Any state, city, or country that would rule you only
have a 2nd amendment right to be armed in your own home
is no place for a free man.Tet68.

“To keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”... says nothing about limits.


8 posted on 02/24/2014 4:16:08 PM PST by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tet68

Amen, bro.


9 posted on 02/24/2014 4:20:10 PM PST by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; Perdogg; JDW11235; Clairity; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; Salvation; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

10 posted on 02/24/2014 4:23:48 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tet68
“To keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”... says nothing about limits.

Exactly. Something to that effect is written into most state constitutions as well. In PA, it is, "shall not be questioned." I like that language, it may be better than "shall not be infringed." You can't infringe something without questioning it. Hence, PA is surrounded by anti-gun states; MD, NY, NJ and has fewer restrictions than TX.

11 posted on 02/24/2014 4:31:40 PM PST by ConservativeInPA (We need to fundamentally transform RATs lives for their lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: tomkat

IOW : “Didn’t you hear what we said the first time!”

End of discussion!


12 posted on 02/24/2014 4:34:39 PM PST by hoosiermama (Obama: "Born in Kenya" Lying now or then or now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

“Privileges vs. Rights”

Leftists and RINOs will continue to run amuck until this becomes the conservative battle cry.

Not one split-second before.

Reason? Because it is the source of ALL the power of the Left.

All of it.


13 posted on 02/24/2014 4:36:13 PM PST by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GregoTX

Once the SCOTUS is pack with liberal Justices, they will then hear the cases.

This may be the why they are waiting to take such a case.
They want to be CERTAIN they can issue the decison they
want. There is also the issue of simply refusing to step
into a big steaming pile by issuing an opinion that even
a sixth grader knows is contrary to the BOR. By simply not
addressing the issue and leaving it up to lower courts they
maintain the appearance of legitimacy. Only time will tell.

If ANY of the more conservative justices step down in the
next three years then America’s goose is cooked for good
because all Obama and his handlers need is ONE MORE JUSTICE
that THEY get to choose and the SCOTUS will give them
ANYTHING they want.


14 posted on 02/24/2014 4:36:26 PM PST by nvscanman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

This has to do with 18 to 20 year olds right to carry weapons. Some one should sue the court about the United States’s ability to draft and put weapons in the hands of people this age.


15 posted on 02/24/2014 4:37:46 PM PST by Starstruck (If my reply offends, you probably don't understand sarcasm or criticism...or do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA
-- This is probably deliberate silence on the part of the SCOTUS. --

Indeed. They are counting on the circuit courts to do the heavy lifting, and deny the right to bear arms, or encumber it sort of like a poll tax (have to pay for the right to bear arms).

SCOTUS stood by for decades while the circuit courts deliberately misread the Presser case.

The system is rigged.

16 posted on 02/24/2014 4:42:14 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tomkat
".. shall NOT be infringed".

Settled Law, endowed by our Creator

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms"

Not settled law, but a series of words undefined in law when taken together.

17 posted on 02/24/2014 4:57:58 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Rode today with my Son-In-Law. He was carrying his badge. We were both lamenting that terrible boating accident.
18 posted on 02/24/2014 5:00:49 PM PST by no-to-illegals (Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
Settled Law because endowed by our Creator
19 posted on 02/24/2014 5:22:01 PM PST by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: tomkat

Stipulating that for the moment, it doesn’t help with “a series of words undefined in law when taken together”.


20 posted on 02/24/2014 5:29:01 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CivilWarBrewing
The damn cowards of SCROTUS cannot even uphold the 2nd Amendment but they are more than happy to shove Socialist health care down our throats.

ironic, isn't it?

21 posted on 02/24/2014 5:31:25 PM PST by uncitizen (Impeach the Communist Already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
I've no idea of the point you seem to be trying to make, and it's too close to bedtime for riddles .. sorry.
22 posted on 02/24/2014 5:50:10 PM PST by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Thanks SCOTUS. What’s the thinking here.


23 posted on 02/24/2014 6:00:01 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: uncitizen

ironic, isn’t it?

Thank goodness the dems haven’t tried to tax gun ownership
yet, I’d hate to see how they would rule on that.


24 posted on 02/24/2014 6:02:26 PM PST by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
These denials don't surprise me. If one counts from the date that the 2A was ratified, it took SCOTUS 217 years to clarify in Heller that an individual has a right to possess a firearm for self defense or 33 years if one counts from 1975. I'm guessing they don't think that the issue is ripe. I'm not saying that I agree, just that I'm not surprised at all.
25 posted on 02/24/2014 6:11:55 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GregoTX

“Once the SCOTUS is pack with liberal Justices, they will then hear the cases.”

That’s my fear as well. This could possibly be the most conservative SCOTUS will be for decades, sad as that is. They keep kicking these crucial issues down the road, and a more lefty Court will eventually be the one picking them up.


26 posted on 02/24/2014 6:22:56 PM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tet68
Thank goodness the dems haven’t tried to tax gun ownership yet, I’d hate to see how they would rule on that.

What do you think the NFA is?

27 posted on 02/24/2014 6:36:32 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Starstruck
This has to do with 18 to 20 year olds right to carry weapons. Someone should sue the court about the United States’s ability to draft and put weapons in the hands of people this age.

Or, better yet, have a group of them form up and take roll — a militia roll.
Document it, then go to the firearms store, and have everyone try to buy a weapon… when the lawmen try to stop you, charge them with their interference with the militia.

(Most States have a definition for "militia" as something like all able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45 — by forming up and having a formation, you are acting as a militia unit, which means that preventing these young men from purchasing their weapons is a direct and literal infringement of their right to keep and bear arms, under color of law and, if you can get the officer's supervisor involved, conspiracy against rights. Moreover, this shows that the "2nd Amendment applies [only] to militia" argument is a lie.)

28 posted on 02/24/2014 6:44:55 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tomkat
I've no idea of the point you seem to be trying to make, and it's too close to bedtime for riddles .. sorry.

It's not a riddle, but a problem. Most everyone puts the emphasis on "shall not be infringed", as you did in post 3. But what is it that shall not be infringed? Ok, it is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" that "shall not be infringed", but what is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"? What are the scope, the boundaries, the constraints of the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"?

Words with a similar structure are: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote" and "The right of citizens of the United States to vote" has boundaries, constraints and is limited in scope. The right does not extend so far as to allow a citizen who resides in Pennsylvania to vote in an election held in Ohio or New York, nor does it mean that a citizen of one county can vote in an election in another county even if both counties are in the same State. The right to vote is also age constrained.

Age constraint on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" seems to have been an issue proposed to SCOTUS. Is age such a constraint and if so how do we know so from the words alone? Some people say if one is old enough to join the military one is old enough to have Second Amendment rights, but how does one get that from the Second Amendment unless maybe one says it applies to the militia which I don't want to do. Why should not a five year old, as one of the people, have the right to keep and bear arms? You might say it is the right of the parents to decide that, although that's not indicated in the Second Amendment, but parents are not supposed to infringe on the Right to Life of a five year old so why should they infringe on ones Second Amendment right?

The words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" are not examined enough by those on our side, but those on the other side will do so. And when those on our side scream "shall not be infringed" the other side will say it's not an infringement because it was not included in "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" to begin with, and our side will not have an adequate response.

I hope you slept well.

29 posted on 02/24/2014 7:38:00 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD; BuckeyeTexan
Thanks SCOTUS. What’s the thinking here.

The NRA made a big deal over these cases-- understandably, because it's the named plaintiff in two of the three-- but they actually weren't that significant compared to other 2nd Amendment issues that are out there, and there isn't much split in the lower courts.

The two NRA cases are both out of the 5th Circuit (one of the more conservative federal appeals courts, covering MS, LA & TX), and both involved state laws that limited gun rights of people under 21. The NRA argued that the cutoff should be 18, not 21, but it's hard to see that as a Second Amendment issue as opposed to a rights-of-minors issue.

The third case was similarly decided in the lower courts on standing grounds, not on Second Amendment grounds. (The question is who is the correct party to challenge the laws about mail-order shipment of firearms.)

There is a much bigger set of Second Amendment cases moving through the lower courts now, which I predict will get decided by SCOTUS. That is whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a gun outside your home and, if so, whether it protects open carry, concealed carry, or both. The lower courts are split several ways on this issue. (The most recent decision was by the 9th Circuit, which said that cities must allow either open or concealed carry; they can ban one but not both.) That issue is too big for the Court to duck, and the split in the lower courts is one it will have to resolve-- probably in the Oct. 2014-June 2015 Term.

30 posted on 02/24/2014 8:30:45 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: nvscanman
"Once the SCOTUS is pack with liberal Justices, they will then hear the cases."

And if they do, then all bets are off, people have to realize that they can pass any thing they want.... but only serves to negate their position as "legal authority" pass the law and the consequences will be biblical.

The law is on the side of the people.

"Shall not be infringed" is not subject to any interruption

31 posted on 02/25/2014 4:18:43 AM PST by SERE_DOC ( “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” TJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SERE_DOC

The government CAN and WILL do exactly what it wants
when it wants to whom it wants with impunity. WHY?
Because the people allow it. Of coure 90% of what
occurs violates the Consitution....but they don’t care.
They know that nothing will happen to them for what
they do. That is why we no longer even have the appearance
of being free let alone true freedom.
Till the people in power abusing that power pay the price
they have no incentive to stop abuse, no reason to fear and
no obstacle to their agenda.

You only have the rights you are willing to fight for, kill for and die for. Till those infringing on our rights start dying they will continue and become more bold and abusive.


32 posted on 02/25/2014 5:22:56 AM PST by nvscanman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Excellent and thanks. Your clarification is what I love about FR. It’s hard to sort out the truth.


33 posted on 02/25/2014 5:24:34 AM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle; tomkat
“a series of words undefined in law when taken together”.

Immaterial, since the words themselves define the law.

Law, as the Founders understood it, is written under the same rules of English used in common grammar - with declatory clauses and restrictive clauses. The 2nd Amendment is a purely declatory clause, so no authority of 'definition' is given, because there can be no restriction.

That's what makes it an acknowledged, absolute Right.

34 posted on 02/25/2014 5:39:45 AM PST by MamaTexan (I am a Person as created by the Laws of Nature, not a person as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; nunya bidness; blackie; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; wku man; SLB; ...
Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!
35 posted on 02/25/2014 7:33:12 AM PST by Joe Brower (The "American People" are no longer capable of self-governance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

“Immaterial, since the words themselves define the law.”

The definition of the law is unclear/unknown if the definition of the words is unclear/unknown.

“Law, as the Founders understood it, is written under the same rules of English used in common grammar - with declatory clauses and restrictive clauses.”

That doesn’t change anything. It’s still necessary to know what the clauses mean.

“The 2nd Amendment is a purely declatory clause, so no authority of ‘definition’ is given, because there can be no restriction.”

What it declares is questionable without definition.

If there can be no restriction then it is wrong to restrict the keeping and bearing of arms by:

—Five year olds

—Prisoners of War

—Those held prisoner pending trial for capital crimes or being punished for same.

—A suspect being held by a posse for arrest by the sheriff.


36 posted on 02/25/2014 7:33:23 AM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: nvscanman
If ANY of the more conservative justices step down or dies in the next three years then America’s goose is cooked for good because all Obama and his handlers need is ONE MORE JUSTICE that THEY get to choose and the SCOTUS will give them ANYTHING they want.

Anyone believe a word coming out of a RAT's pie hole??

From theguardian.com, Thursday 21 November 2013

Senate approves change to filibuster rule after repeated Republican blocks
Historic rule change means presidential nominees require only a simple majority to proceed to Senate confirmation

It’s a 10-kiloton bomb, not a 10-megaton one: Supreme Court nominees will still require 60 votes for cloture before confirmation. The possibility of a Republican president and a Republican Senate pushing through pro-life justices is too horrifying to the left for them to risk changing the rules on SCOTUS appointments too.



IF a conservative justice were to leave SCOTUS in the next three years you can count on REID/OBAMA to come to the rescue and ram a LIBERAL through to SCOTUS using rule changes, tricks, chicanery, whatever it takes to achieve liberal dominance in AMERICA. THIS WOULD BE HISTORIC FOR THE LIBTARDS AND THEY WILL NOT LET THE OPPORTUNITY BE DENIED

THE GOP WILL CAVE WITHOUT A WHIMPER DUE TO THE THREAT OF THE RACE CARD BEING PLAYED.
37 posted on 02/25/2014 7:52:54 AM PST by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; Joe Brower
The most recent decision was by the 9th Circuit, which said that cities must allow either open or concealed carry; they can ban one but not both.

I can't help but wonder, if that case was done under the 9th Circuit on purpose?

Given the 9th's reputation of being the most-often-overturned court in the land, the decision may have been deliberately set up to fail. Knowing that SCROTUS would reflexively overturn anything the 9th sends them...

38 posted on 02/25/2014 7:53:11 AM PST by Old Sarge (TINVOWOOT: There Is No Voting Our Way Out Of This)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: highball
We have only three conservative judges:
Alito, Scalia and Thomas, one swing judge: Kennedy, one d****-bag Roberts and four radical leftists: Kagan, Bader-Ginsberg, Soto-Mayor and Breyer.

We need to elect a conservative President to replace the leftists.

The Good Guys:

Scalia is 77

Thomas is 65

Alito is 63.

The Swing Judge:

Kennedy is 77.

The D*****-Bag:

George Bush's D*****-Bag, Roberts is 59. He will be acting as a ringer for a long time.

The Statist Fascsists:

Bader-Ginsburg is 80, and its unlikely anyone more to the left than she is is around.

Kagan is 53 and will be on the court long after many of us are dead.

Soto-Mayor is 59 - ditto.

Breyer is 75 and is a potential gain for us in the next term.

We need to get a conservative in the Presidency and we a convention of the states to amend the constitution to allow COngress or the states to nullify a SCOTUS decision if enough congressmen or states choose to do so.

39 posted on 02/25/2014 8:56:35 AM PST by ZULU (Magua is sitting in the Oval Office. Ted Cruz/Phil Robertson in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge
I can't help but wonder, if that case was done under the 9th Circuit on purpose? Given the 9th's reputation of being the most-often-overturned court in the land, the decision may have been deliberately set up to fail. Knowing that SCROTUS would reflexively overturn anything the 9th sends them...

1. The case was brought in the 9th Circuit because the challenge was to San Diego's law. San Diego is in the 9th Circuit. There have been challenges to similar laws in other circuits, which have largely upheld laws against carrying outside the home.

2. The Ninth Circuit used to be the most-overturned Circuit, but last year I believe the Sixth Circuit took that honor.

3. The Ninth Circuit gets overturned a lot because it has a lot of very liberal judges. But federal Circuit courts sit in randomly-selected panels of 3 judges, so you sometimes get a Ninth Circuit panel with 2 or 3 conservative judges. That's what happened here.

40 posted on 02/25/2014 9:42:03 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

You know, I noticed that the NRA was a petitioner in two of the cases and wondered if that had any bearing on the Court’s denial.

I Know, I know. One cannot presume anything from a denial. Yes, sensei. ;p


41 posted on 02/25/2014 9:43:05 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
we a convention of the states to amend the constitution to allow COngress or the states to nullify a SCOTUS decision if enough congressmen or states choose to do so.

Careful what you wish for. The Gun-Free Schools Act, which the Supreme Court held unconstitutional in the Lopez case, was passed by Congress unanimously. If Congress had the power to nullify SCOTUS decisions, they would have overturned Lopez in a minute.

42 posted on 02/25/2014 9:45:55 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

I think there should be a provision in the Constitution to allow a 3/4 vote of COngress or of the states to nullify or void a SCOTUS decision.


43 posted on 02/25/2014 10:07:35 AM PST by ZULU (Magua is sitting in the Oval Office. Ted Cruz/Phil Robertson in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: CivilWarBrewing

The SCOTUS hasn’t made many 2nd amendment decisions in its history, and the article indicates the most recent decisions were pro 2nd amendment. They are simply waiting for a large body of lower cases to develop that they can draw from before they rule further.


44 posted on 02/25/2014 10:20:54 AM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
That doesn’t change anything. It’s still necessary to know what the clauses mean.

The Founders wrote it based on the comprehensive ability of an eight grader. The only purpose to try to derive 'meaning' from anything other than the plain language OF it is an attempt to marginalize it.

-----

If there can be no restriction then it is wrong to restrict the keeping and bearing of arms by:
—Five year olds

Minors are under the protection of those that Created them...their parents.

Two of the others fall under War crimes- individuals of an opposing military force absolves anyone else of the obligation to acknowledge their Rights by their own actions.

The others concern individuals who commit or are in custody for crimes against the Law are protected by the entity holding them...it's why police departments get sued when a suspect comes to harm.

-----

Stop trying to pervert the Original Intent by defining established words by today's rules.

Why don't you look at the evidence instead? Courts have found...repeatedly, that the police have no legal liability for failing to protect someone. If that legal liability is not there, that also means the police (i.e. government) can have no legal authority to prevent you from protecting yourself...unless you believe anyone is obligated to stand there and be murdered.

You see, with Rights, comes Duties...and the Founders enumerated both the Right and the Duty for us to protect ourselves.

45 posted on 02/25/2014 10:42:38 AM PST by MamaTexan (I am a Person as created by the Laws of Nature, not a person as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

The Sixth!? I never would have guessed.


46 posted on 02/25/2014 10:54:08 AM PST by Old Sarge (TINVOWOOT: There Is No Voting Our Way Out Of This)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
The only purpose to try to derive 'meaning' from anything other than the plain language OF it is an attempt to marginalize it.

Not so. What was "plain language" to the writers may not be so plain to readers 220+ years later. Trying to understand the meaning of what was "plain language" then is an aid fighting those who would marginalize it by attaching a modern meaning to it. Shouting "Shall Not Be Infringed" isn't enough because they will claim that whatever you shout against is not an infringement because it is not included in the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". We have to be able to show otherwise and you've already indicated that some things aren't included by your words:

Minors are under the protection of those that Created them...their parents.

Two of the others fall under War crimes- individuals of an opposing military force absolves anyone else of the obligation to acknowledge their Rights by their own actions.

The others concern individuals who commit or are in custody for crimes against the Law are protected by the entity holding them...it's why police departments get sued when a suspect comes to harm.

Those words admit restrictions on the Second Amendment right. Would you say any of those restrictions violate "Shall Not Be Infringed"? They also contradict your assertion: "... there can be no restriction. That's what makes it an acknowledged, absolute Right."

If we don't proactively determine and assert the meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" and do so with reason as well as emotion, others will do so and attempt to force their meaning on us.

47 posted on 02/25/2014 12:32:34 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
They also contradict your assertion: "... there can be no restriction. There is no contradiction. The Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is for the People for whom exception has not been made.

Those exceptions being people who are not minors nor have their Right restricted due to their own actions, not because someone didn't hand their papers to some 'authority' fast enough or because some pencil-necked bureaucrat didn't like some poor sap's political bent.

----

If we don't proactively determine and assert the meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" and do so with reason as well as emotion, others will do so and attempt to force their meaning on us.

Fair enough. Here's my unemotional and reasoned determination of the meaning of the words Right to Keep and bear arms'-

Forcing someone to remain helpless in the face of injury or certain death without any repercussions for forcing them to do so is an immoral act, thus the Right to keep...or have arms, and to take, or bear them where they will...whenever they will... in defense of themselves or others is an inalienable, Natural Right because even in Nature, animals will defend themselves and their offspring.

OR, we could just determine the common sense meaning like we're supposed to.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
― Thomas Jefferson / Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776

48 posted on 02/25/2014 2:13:57 PM PST by MamaTexan (I am a Person as created by the Laws of Nature, not a person as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
The Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is for the People for whom exception has not been made.

Outstanding! An acknowledgment of exceptions to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". And I take it that acknowledgment includes that a law in regard to such an exception, for instance a law forbidding the keeping and bearing of arms by someone justly imprisoned for a crime, would not violate "shall not be infringed".

As to the rest of your post, I don't disagree with it but I'm not sure it covers everything and it takes a different direction than I was thinking of. I might say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is the right by which people may protect and defend their other rights. I'll have to think about that.

49 posted on 02/26/2014 2:13:55 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson