Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 28th, 2021, 01:57 PM #391
fred55's Avatar
fred55 fred55 is offline
Senior
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Spotsylvania Co. VA
Posts: 1,552
fred55 fred55 is offline
Senior
fred55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Spotsylvania Co. VA
Posts: 1,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
It is not as clear as you suggest. The 2A does not define the scope of the right. It is a preexisting right that you need to look elsewhere to fully understand.
I think the intentions of the founding fathers and their Nation creating documents are pretty clear to the majority of citizens. It's the wordsmiths that contort the words and attempt to bugger the Constitution to meet their goals. IMHO fred55
__________________
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so." -- Ronald Reagan
fred55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2021, 02:01 PM #392
pcfixer's Avatar
pcfixer pcfixer is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Marylandstan
Posts: 4,941
pcfixer pcfixer is online now
Senior Member
pcfixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Marylandstan
Posts: 4,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
It is not as clear as you suggest. The 2A does not define the scope of the right. It is a preexisting right that you need to look elsewhere to fully understand.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/18-824

Quote:
"the Second Amendment . . . codified a pre-existing right.” Id., at 592. This right was “enshrined with the scope [it was] understood to have when the people adopted” it. Id., at 634. To determine that scope, we analyzed the original meaning of the Second Amendment’s text as well as the historical understanding of the right".

Just think this dissent we will see much of the same language. I'm sure Justice ACB will weigh in.
__________________
Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of tyrannical government.

“By the way I call it "moral obedience" rather than "civil disobedience" because it is God's law". Those who try to promote un-natural laws on us are committing moral disobedience. It is our duty to resist immoral laws and actions.” By Richard Fry.
pcfixer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2021, 02:31 PM #393
fscwi fscwi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,135
fscwi fscwi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by frogman68 View Post
You new here ?? Or just started drinking early ??

These liberal @sshats will do anything to prevent peons to carry . They know it will take years to wind through the courts
DC requires 16 hours of classroom training and a 2 hour live fire range test to qualify for a permit. The range test consists of 10 rounds at each of five distances: 3, 5, 7, 10, and 15 yards. Timed and scored, starting from holster with by sides. You have about 1 second per round at the closer distances and nearly 2 seconds per round at 10 and 15 yards. Highest possible score is 500, I think you have to get a minimum of something like 380 to pass. Must be renewed every 2 years, and 4 hours of refresher classroom training and completing the range test again are required for renewal. The instructor will have some practice time with you and do a practice cycle run through of all the test shots before the test if given.

Depending on what certified trainer you use, costs for training, DC permit fees, range fee, and ammo, you can be looking at $500 and up for the initial permit.
fscwi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2021, 02:47 PM #394
trickg's Avatar
trickg trickg is offline
Guns 'n Drums
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Glen Burnie
Posts: 10,389
trickg trickg is offline
Guns 'n Drums
trickg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Glen Burnie
Posts: 10,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by fred55 View Post
I think the intentions of the founding fathers and their Nation creating documents are pretty clear to the majority of citizens. It's the wordsmiths that contort the words and attempt to bugger the Constitution to meet their goals. IMHO fred55
Scalia said as much in his opinion in Heller v. DC.

Scalia was of the mindset - and he backed it up with reference after reference from the writings of the Founders - that the Bill of Rights was written in simple language so that it could be understood by everyone, and "the People" meant everyone.

He further went on to show that the operative clause, "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," was not defined or limited by the prefatory clause, but rather that a well-regulated militia made up of the people could only exist IF the people were armed, and therefore in the minds of some of the Founders, "the People" - meaning everyone - SHOULD be armed.
__________________
TrickG
"My name is Gladiator" -- Maximus Decimus Meridius
trickg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2021, 02:52 PM #395
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,767
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcfixer View Post
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/18-824




Just think this dissent we will see much of the same language. I'm sure Justice ACB will weigh in.
I am not sure what exactly you are reacting to, we have said the same thing. The text does not limit the scope nor does it define it. You need to look elsewhere to the history at the time the 2A was adopted to determine its scope.
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2021, 02:52 PM #396
frogman68's Avatar
frogman68 frogman68 is offline
товарищ плачевная
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 8,521
frogman68 frogman68 is offline
товарищ плачевная
frogman68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 8,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by fscwi View Post
DC requires 16 hours of classroom training and a 2 hour live fire range test to qualify for a permit. The range test consists of 10 rounds at each of five distances: 3, 5, 7, 10, and 15 yards. Timed and scored, starting from holster with by sides. You have about 1 second per round at the closer distances and nearly 2 seconds per round at 10 and 15 yards. Highest possible score is 500, I think you have to get a minimum of something like 380 to pass. Must be renewed every 2 years, and 4 hours of refresher classroom training and completing the range test again are required for renewal. The instructor will have some practice time with you and do a practice cycle run through of all the test shots before the test if given.

Depending on what certified trainer you use, costs for training, DC permit fees, range fee, and ammo, you can be looking at $500 and up for the initial permit.
And Frosh will ensure that is nothing compared to MD's shall issue scheme they will try everything to stop us from legally carrying
__________________
“And in that moment I swore that nothing in this universe could be so heavy as the absence of the person you love” Beau Taplin Peggy Joan 12/13/71-5/27/21
frogman68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2021, 03:03 PM #397
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,767
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by trickg View Post
Scalia said as much in his opinion in Heller v. DC.

Scalia was of the mindset - and he backed it up with reference after reference from the writings of the Founders - that the Bill of Rights was written in simple language so that it could be understood by everyone, and "the People" meant everyone.

He further went on to show that the operative clause, "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," was not defined or limited by the prefatory clause, but rather that a well-regulated militia made up of the people could only exist IF the people were armed, and therefore in the minds of some of the Founders, "the People" - meaning everyone - SHOULD be armed.
That is not exactly what was said in Heller. The part you are missing is that "Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them" One of the things that was said was that "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." There are some limitations.
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2021, 03:23 PM #398
Trbo6gn's Avatar
Trbo6gn Trbo6gn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Harford Co.
Posts: 2,652
Trbo6gn Trbo6gn is offline
Senior Member
Trbo6gn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Harford Co.
Posts: 2,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by fscwi View Post
DC requires 16 hours of classroom training and a 2 hour live fire range test to qualify for a permit. The range test consists of 10 rounds at each of five distances: 3, 5, 7, 10, and 15 yards. Timed and scored, starting from holster with by sides. You have about 1 second per round at the closer distances and nearly 2 seconds per round at 10 and 15 yards. Highest possible score is 500, I think you have to get a minimum of something like 380 to pass. Must be renewed every 2 years, and 4 hours of refresher classroom training and completing the range test again are required for renewal. The instructor will have some practice time with you and do a practice cycle run through of all the test shots before the test if given.

Depending on what certified trainer you use, costs for training, DC permit fees, range fee, and ammo, you can be looking at $500 and up for the initial permit.
So pretty much the same requirements that Maryland currently has to apply for a permit except with a very high likelihood of a permit being issued by DC. In Maryland you do the training, live fire, fingerprinting, application fee and they deny you because you don't have what they consider G&S.
Trbo6gn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2021, 03:41 PM #399
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,332
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
kcbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
You don't seem to grasp the concept that "Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have at their adoption."
Oh yes I do. I stated explicitly that the scope of the right is obviously going to be limited to whatever the founding generation understood it to be.


Quote:
There was no unlimited right to carry whatever, wherever, and for however you want. One of the restrictions on carry was concealed carry.
I've not seen any evidence to date that the founding generation, much less the authors of the 2nd Amendment, believed that. The only case I am aware of that could possibly have been decided by the founders' contemporaries was Bliss v Commonwealth, and that case says that the 2nd Amendment unequivocally protects concealed carry.


Quote:
The historical understanding for why concealed carry was prohibited is to prevent arms from being used for "nefarious purposes". Today one should be allowed to conceal carry because it is not exclusively associated with "nefarious purposes", but that does not change the fact that carrying for "nefarious purposes" is still prohibited because that is what was historically prohibited.
Carrying for "nefarious purposes" may be prohibited, but you're not allowed to infringe upon the right in order to deal with that.

Previously, it was presumed, at least by the generations that came after the founders, that if you were carrying concealed, that it must have been for "nefarious purposes". Which is to say, the very act of carrying concealed meant that you were doing so for "nefarious purposes". The two were considered synonymous.

But as I said, more recent experience blows that presumption out of the water. Absent that presumption, there is nothing to consistently indicate whether or not one is carrying for nefarious purposes. And even if there were, you're not allowed to forbid whatever indicator that may be if you would be infringing upon the right in the process.


You're going to have to explain Bliss v Commonwealth if you're going to insist that the founding generation understood concealed carry to not be part of the right.

And you're also going to have to explain why the Supreme Court settled upon a definition of "bear" for 2nd Amendment purposes that explicitly includes concealed carry, if concealed carry is somehow not part of the right. If concealed carry is not part of the right that the 2nd Amendment refers to when it says "bear", then the definition of bear must reflect that. The Bliss judges apparently understood this.

Now, I've called for this before (though perhaps not here), and so I'll do so again. If someone can supply substantial evidence that concealed carry was understood by the founding generation or, better yet, by the authors of the 2nd Amendment, to not be part of the right to bear, then that will obviously shift my thinking here. But to date, the only real evidence I've seen comes out of Bliss, and it is a contrary indicator.


Quote:
The carry permit is simply an extension on the "nefarious purposes" to make it easier to identify those that do not commit "nefarious" acts. It is consistent with the historical understanding of the right.
Consistent or not, it's not allowed if it infringes upon the right. The scope of the right isn't "bear only with a permit", it's "bear", period. And like I said, a permit swings the presumption to one of guilt instead of one of innocence. But it is only the latter that is appropriate in a system of ordered liberty.
kcbrown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2021, 05:46 PM #400
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hazzard County
Posts: 3,270
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hazzard County
Posts: 3,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
You don't need a permit system for that. A driver's license can indicate prohibited status.

Furthermore, a permit creates a "guilty until proven innocent" standard, which is an anathema to our ordered system of liberty.

A permit is something you get for a privilege, not a right, unless it is for some kind of exercise of a right that would otherwise interfere with another right.
"Prohibited from firearms and voting" or similar language branded on felons' drivers' licenses would be just fine with me.
Kharn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (1 members and 3 guests)
pcfixer
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2021, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service