In fact, the USSC has clearly held that the militia has nothing to do with the right to "keep and bear arms." Adding that stipulation is a clear violation of the constitution.
The Constitution clearly states that states have rights in relation to militias, which means it is not exclusively a federal issue, which means states have constitutional right to regulate firearms within their states. - - - Updated - - - You are the one who said you'd support it, not me. Apparently you do not support that which you say you support so when you say you support the second amendment one can assume that maybe you really don't.
Judicial activism at its finest. Completely ignore the plain language in the Constitution, then just make up your own definitions as to what "arms" are. Scalia only has an issue with Judicial activism when the decision is against his political interests.
People have used guns illegally for years. What does that have to do with legislation that allows people who wish to legally carry to do so. In my state CCW licensees must be photographed, fingerprinted, pass firearm safety class, demonstrate firearm proficiency, pass an FBI background check, pay a fee and wait a month or two before receiving the License. Stats show that licensed folks are 13 times less likely to be involved in crime. You are confusing responsible gun owners with common criminals.
Heller V DC clearly states "1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." So it is not a right clearly tied to the militia. You are just plain wrong here.
with all the judicial activism and increases in concealed carry and open carry, when was this wild wild west going to start?
No I am not, but it is not Heller v. DC, it is DC v. Heller. States have a right to regulate guns. "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts rou- tinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Ergo states may regulate when one can carry, what weapons they may carry, and the manner in which they may carry. It is just a matter of which ones the Court decides on any given day is permissible. Scalia and Kennedy are as old as dirt, and well, being African-American, Thomas could stroke out at any moment, so what that means is subject to change, but until then, Heller deals with what happens in the home, not what happens on the street, which is the subject of the OP.
I've long heard the old adage, "as California goes, so goes the rest of the country". It's kind of ironic that most of the country beat California on this issue. What may be even more ironic is the 9th Circuit Court ruled it so! It appears the trends of freedoms and liberties that have long taken root and enjoyed in the North, South, East, West, Midwest and Northwest states in America, have finally arrived in California.
If you really gave 2 (*)(*)(*)(*)s about the constitution, stop trying to read between the lines and bending the constitution to your perverted bias. Just ask the founding fathers what they had in mind. If you want to be coddled by a government I could recommend a few countries.. The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment The Founding Fathers on Arms
Yes you are wrong... you said and I quote "and the right to have guns is clearly tied to the militia," and SCOTUS clearly repudiated that, In Heller v DC. As a side note you should read McDonald V Chicago to learn how far a state can go. Then you should go on to read Moore v Madigan to learn about the 7th circuits order regarding "no issuing" You'll find a plethora of information making you look ill informed. Good Luck
Well I really don't care one way or the other. I would be just as happy if we threw the thing out and started completely from scratch. Either way, most all the rights in the Bill of Rights have been absolutely destroyed by the right and "strict constructionist" so anytime they quote some dead guy, I cannot help but chuckle at their hypocrisy on "rights" and how they are defenders of them and all the other nonsense.
Heller says it is tied to the militia. You just read what you want to read. Being associated with something is not all or nothing. Heller also says that the second amendment can be regulated. I provided you the direct quote from the decision. Nothing I have said is inaccurate--you are just too blind to see that words have meanings other than the ones you are itching to give them.
How is this even a Second Amendment issue? Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the appropriate Terms: If it doesn't involve a well regulated Militia of the United States it cannot be a Second Amendment issue simply because that which is necessary to the security of a free State is a sovereign, States' right.
Since you clearly embrace socialism and communism, sprinkled with a dash of Monarchial Rule, it would be lots easier for you to move......say, China, N. Korea, Cuba, ...... than to try and disarm America..............regardless, it is unlawful for the Fed Gov to register guns with owners and maintain a data base with that information. Personally, I believe in carry conceal without permits.........folks would be a lot more polite to each other.
How does that analogy work with law enforcement who openly carry Arms and even wear a badge? - - - Updated - - - It is only the right to not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union, and only for the People who are a well regulated Militia.
LOL Clearly you are wrong...no where did SCOTUS go on to say that the states may apply militia to their ruling...The opening statement in Heller V C says it all...and you are once more...WRONG!
Do you mean the "Wild Wild West" from Hollywood movies and old dime novels that fuel your fevered imaginations, or the real "wild west" where violence wasn't all that prevalent and cooperation was the norm (unless you were a Native American pitted against the US Army of the 1870's)?
Some do. Those are the ones to worry about. - - - Updated - - - What did they say about automatic and semi-automatic weapons?
LOL, Seriously? Better yet, Perhaps you could point out where anyone thought we should be limited specifically to muskets? If you spent any time reading period quotes it is quite clear to me that a Militia, formed of the people should be something standing armies fear.
bud, there ain't but two ways to get rid of the 2nd A and that is to declare martial law or charge the individual with a crime that suspends his liberties. Congress cannot legislate away the basic Rights recognized in those meager Bill of Rights. It is unlawful and illegal for Congress to suspend, enmass, any portion of the BoR.
