Posted on 05/05/2014 9:08:50 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Today, SCOTUS denied, without comment, the petition for a writ of certiorari in Drake v. Jerejian, which leaves in place the Third Circuit's ruling.
The questions presented in Drake are (1) whether the Second Amendment secures a right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense; and (2) whether state officials violate the Second Amendment by requiring that individuals wishing to exercise their right to carry a handgun for self-defense first prove a “justifiable need” for doing so.
The Third Circuit held (1) that carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense falls outside the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection; and (2) that the legislature’s policy decisions need not be supported by any findings or evidence to survive a Second Amendment challenge, if the law strikes the court as reasonable. It thus upheld New Jersey’s “justifiable need” prerequisite for carrying defensive handguns.
The petitioners were John M. Drake, Gregory C. Gallaher, Lenny S. Salerno, Finley Fenton, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., and Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc.
Members of the 113th Congress, the Gun Owners Foundation, the National Rifle Association of America, Inc., and the Cato Institute were among those who filed amici curiae briefs in support of the petition for certiorari.
The citizens of Boston were required to submit to having their personal arms housed in a government controlled armory and they were subject to search for smuggling weapons on departing the city.
You seem to be saying that, because we don't know everything about what the Second Amendment means, we then know NOTHING about what it means.
Law-abiding people in Arizona now require no government permit to carry whether open or concealed. Is there blood running in the streets?
The burden is completely on you to make the case that the right, as exercised in Arizona, is not fully protected by the Second Amendment. We are not a nation of limited rights. We are a nation of limited government.
It's a very Soviet idea to presume that everything that is not permitted is prohibited. That is not what our Founders intended. Rather they intended that whatever was not prohibited was permitted. Why do you think otherwise?
From whence comes the federal regulation infringing the right to possess a short-barreled shotgun? What clause in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to control this?
What I take from your post is that you have no thoughtful answers for my questions, so you’re going to go off on tangents, make false attributions to me, try to get me to defend a case I didn’t make, and in general obfuscate, undoubtedly so you can play “William Tell wins”.
As they say: “No Thanks.”
I think you were asking me to outline the limits of the right to keep and bear arms.
My answer is that absolute ANYTHING having to do with self-defense, protecting our communities, and stopping tyranny is included. It is not properly my burden to decide where the limits of my unalienable rights are. It is the burden of the government to convince me that they are COMPELLED to involve themselves in ANY WAY.
If there is another question you expected me to address, perhaps I overlooked it in favor of answering what I thought was most important.
The British are coming!
The British are coming!
(You may engage when they knock down your doors. I’m sure that’s what the Founders had in mind.)
Not after having been convicted by a jury of his peers of a serious crime, since the government is compelled to disarm him in order to carry out its justified incarceration and punishment.
KrisKrinkle said: "Does someone on another's property have the right to keep and bear arms against the wishes of the property owner?"
Yes. The property owner is obligated to inform trespassers that they are not welcome and is justified in using only that force which is necessary to eject them. Absent any resistance on the other person's part, there would be no right to disarm them."
KrisKrinkle said: "Is a five year old one of the people with the right to keep and bear arms?"
My four-year-olds were armed by me as part of the training they needed to appreciate the responsibility of using firearms. The government has no authority to interfere with what they were doing without my permission. To the extent that the exercise of any rights by minors are subject to control by their parents, yes they have such rights.
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.