Supreme Court Weighs Second Amendment Showdown After Mass Shootings

[STTAB]

Just like minimum wage, not all states and areas within states are alike. For a myriad of reasons, the feds should keep their hands off the 2nd.

I don't disagree but the notion that states weren't beholden to the restrictions of the Bill of Rights went by the wayside decades ago.

Carrying a gun is NOT guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. Owning one is, and of course if you own one you will have to from time to time transport it so laws making it hard or even impossible to transport one from one location to another demonstrably violate the 2nd, but our history is actually filled with historical examples of it being illegal to carry firearms within cities and such. One clear example is that it was illegal to carry a firearm in the very city that the COTUS was written and ratified in at the time that it was ratified.

[Kathianne]

I don't disagree but the notion that states weren't beholden to the restrictions of the Bill of Rights went by the wayside decades ago.

Carrying a gun is NOT guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. Owning one is, and of course if you own one you will have to from time to time transport it so laws making it hard or even impossible to transport one from one location to another demonstrably violate the 2nd, but our history is actually filled with historical examples of it being illegal to carry firearms within cities and such. One clear example is that it was illegal to carry a firearm in the very city that the COTUS was written and ratified in at the time that it was ratified.

I'll take my chances on the meaning of the Bill of Rights from the courts rather than your take. But thanks for trying to be the final voice of all.

[CSM]

I don't disagree but the notion that states weren't beholden to the restrictions of the Bill of Rights went by the wayside decades ago.

Carrying a gun is NOT guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. Owning one is, and of course if you own one you will have to from time to time transport it so laws making it hard or even impossible to transport one from one location to another demonstrably violate the 2nd, but our history is actually filled with historical examples of it being illegal to carry firearms within cities and such. One clear example is that it was illegal to carry a firearm in the very city that the COTUS was written and ratified in at the time that it was ratified.

I am no scholar but I do believe the word "bear" means "carry" and NOT simply own and store. It was once legal to own slaves in this country but I seriously doubt such historical precedent would carry any weight these days.

[STTAB]

I am no scholar but I do believe the word "bear" means "carry" and NOT simply own and store. It was once legal to own slaves in this country but I seriously doubt such historical precedent would carry any weight these days.

Well, I AM a historical scholar, I have the PhD that proves it, and it is undeniable that the founding fathers did not intend for people to be able to just carry weapons wherever they wanted whenever they wanted.

As for your slavery analogy, there is actually a law making slavery illegal in this country (well a Constitutional Amendment) so your analogy really makes no sense.

There have been zero rulings from courts declaring that carrying a long arm in public is a right, and no doubt such a law would be challenged, but as I said if I were Trump I'd push for the law and dare someone to challenge it. There is ample proof that we have always had laws that limit when and where people may carry firearms

[CSM]

Well, I AM a historical scholar, I have the PhD that proves it, and it is undeniable that the founding fathers did not intend for people to be able to just carry weapons wherever they wanted whenever they wanted.

As for your slavery analogy, there is actually a law making slavery illegal in this country (well a Constitutional Amendment) so your analogy really makes no sense.

There have been zero rulings from courts declaring that carrying a long arm in public is a right, and no doubt such a law would be challenged, but as I said if I were Trump I'd push for the law and dare someone to challenge it. There is ample proof that we have always had laws that limit when and where people may carry firearms

I am impressed. I suppose you are a legal scholar as well.

However, uneducated lil ole me says your assertion regarding the intent of the Founding Fathers is speculative at best (unless you can read the minds of the dead). My analogy of slavery simply implies that historical precedent does not necessarily lend credence to your assertions.

[STTAB]

I am impressed. I suppose you are a legal scholar as well.

However, uneducated lil ole me says your assertion regarding the intent of the Founding Fathers is speculative at best (unless you can read the minds of the dead). My analogy of slavery simply implies that historical precedent does not necessarily lend credence to your assertions.

My wife is the lawyer LOL

And I mean history is littered with examples of various towns and cities making it illegal to carry firearms within the city limits. There are thousands of current examples of such. Would a federal law REALLY make any difference in terms of the law abiding citizen? No it would not, all it would do is allow the full power of the federal government to be brought to bear on any person arrested for such, and it would allow for certain triggers against various communities that have such laws but simply don't enforce them enough.

For example, this guy in Springfield, he broke no current laws, but between you me and the wall we know his intentions were not good. Even if he wasn't planning on actually firing the weapon let alone shooting anyone, his intentions were to scare and harm people . He SHOULD face punishment for that. But he won't , as a matter of fact in actuality since he did NOT violate any laws, as perverse as it may seem the fireman who detained him could himself face federal charges including kidnapping.

[CSM]

My wife is the lawyer LOL

And I mean history is littered with examples of various towns and cities making it illegal to carry firearms within the city limits. There are thousands of current examples of such. Would a federal law REALLY make any difference in terms of the law abiding citizen? No it would not, all it would do is allow the full power of the federal government to be brought to bear on any person arrested for such, and it would allow for certain triggers against various communities that have such laws but simply don't enforce them enough.

For example, this guy in Springfield, he broke no current laws, but between you me and the wall we know his intentions were not good. Even if he wasn't planning on actually firing the weapon let alone shooting anyone, his intentions were to scare and harm people . He SHOULD face punishment for that. But he won't , as a matter of fact in actuality since he did NOT violate any laws, as perverse as it may seem the fireman who detained him could himself face federal charges including kidnapping.

Fear can make people do some very strange things....

If it is proven that the fireman (that asshole!) detained an innocent civilian who was not doing anything illegal, should he not be prosecuted? Interestingly, as a former military member yourself, you well know we don't get to enforce only the "standards" (or laws) we agree with but are charged with enforcing ALL those in effect. Granted, some of those standards (laws) are seemingly stupid BUT just remember that someone thought those stupid standards or laws were a good idea....

[STTAB]

Fear can make people do some very strange things....

If it is proven that the fireman (that asshole!) detained an innocent civilian who was not doing anything illegal, should he not be prosecuted? Interestingly, as a former military member yourself, you well know we don't get to enforce only the "standards" (or laws) we agree with but are charged with enforcing ALL those in effect. Granted, some of those standards (laws) are seemingly stupid BUT just remember that someone thought those stupid standards or laws were a good idea....

Yes , under the current law if the fireman did something wrong I believe he should be prosecuted. I have warned about that on this and other message boards for YEARS when people start talking about citizen's arrests. You have to be VERY careful that you understand the law and your specific rights when doing so . To me it looks like the fireman obviously didn't realize he couldn't detain this guy just because......

Now, just because I agree he should be prosecuted IF he broke the law, doesn't mean I don't empathize with him, nor does it mean I agree with the law. The law needs to be changed.