Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
guns
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Fenris" data-source="post: 2249506" data-attributes="member: 35081"><p>I have - miscellaneous excerpts below regarding banning types of guns and carry:</p><p></p><p>"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii" target="_blank">Second Amendment</a> . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmenti" target="_blank">First Amendment</a> protects modern forms of communications, <em>e.g.</em>, <em>Reno</em> v. <em>American Civil Liberties Union</em>, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?521+844" target="_blank">521 U. S. 844</a>, 849 (1997) , and the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentiv" target="_blank">Fourth Amendment</a> applies to modern forms of search, <em>e.g.</em>, <em>Kyllo</em> v. <em>United States</em>, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?533+27" target="_blank">533 U. S. 27</a>, 35–36 (2001) , <strong>the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii" target="_blank">Second Amendment</a> extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."</strong></p><p></p><p>"At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. <em>United States</em>, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?524+125" target="_blank">524 U. S. 125</a> (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “Surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii" target="_blank">Second Amendment</a> … indicate:<strong> ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ”</strong> Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization."</p><p></p><p>" c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the <strong>individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation</strong>. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii" target="_blank">Second Amendment</a> . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii" target="_blank">Second Amendment</a> , like the First and <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentiv" target="_blank">Fourth Amendment</a> s, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii" target="_blank">Second Amendment</a> implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?92+542" target="_blank">92 U. S. 542</a>, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html#16" target="_blank">16"</a></p><p><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html#16" target="_blank"></a></p><p><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html#16" target="_blank">" It is therefore entirely sensible that the </a><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii" target="_blank">Second Amendment</a> ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; <strong>most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense</strong> and hunting."</p><p></p><p>"Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “<strong>in common use at the time.</strong>"</p><p></p><p></p><p>The Heller decision was geared towards Heller asking for relief to have handguns in the home so the decision allowed that. Don't mis-judge the specific relief Heller asked for as being the entirety of the 2nd amendment's protections. The decision clearly laid the case for carry of some sort, whether open or concealed, and for the right to keep and bear arms that are in common usage, like the AR-15.</p><p></p><p>Please provide specifics to anything that says otherwise.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Fenris, post: 2249506, member: 35081"] I have - miscellaneous excerpts below regarding banning types of guns and carry: "Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the [URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii']Second Amendment[/URL] . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the [URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmenti']First Amendment[/URL] protects modern forms of communications, [I]e.g.[/I], [I]Reno[/I] v. [I]American Civil Liberties Union[/I], [URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?521+844']521 U. S. 844[/URL], 849 (1997) , and the [URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentiv']Fourth Amendment[/URL] applies to modern forms of search, [I]e.g.[/I], [I]Kyllo[/I] v. [I]United States[/I], [URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?533+27']533 U. S. 27[/URL], 35–36 (2001) , [B]the [URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii']Second Amendment[/URL] extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."[/B] "At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. [I]United States[/I], [URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?524+125']524 U. S. 125[/URL] (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “Surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s [URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii']Second Amendment[/URL] … indicate:[B] ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ”[/B] Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization." " c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the [B]individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation[/B]. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the [URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii']Second Amendment[/URL] . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the [URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii']Second Amendment[/URL] , like the First and [URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentiv']Fourth Amendment[/URL] s, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the [URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii']Second Amendment[/URL] implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, [URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?92+542']92 U. S. 542[/URL], 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”[URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html#16']16" " It is therefore entirely sensible that the [/URL][URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii']Second Amendment[/URL] ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; [B]most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense[/B] and hunting." "Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “[B]in common use at the time.[/B]" The Heller decision was geared towards Heller asking for relief to have handguns in the home so the decision allowed that. Don't mis-judge the specific relief Heller asked for as being the entirety of the 2nd amendment's protections. The decision clearly laid the case for carry of some sort, whether open or concealed, and for the right to keep and bear arms that are in common usage, like the AR-15. Please provide specifics to anything that says otherwise. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
guns
Top
