Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 18th, 2017, 03:30 PM #821
pcfixer's Avatar
pcfixer pcfixer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Marylandstan
Posts: 4,059
pcfixer pcfixer is offline
Senior Member
pcfixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Marylandstan
Posts: 4,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by 777GSOTB View Post
MD AWB...Not using AW for self-defense=No damage to right.
DC AWB...Not using AW for self-defense=No damage to right.
NY AWB...Not using AW for self-defense=No damage to right.
CT AWB...Not using AW for self-defense=No damage to right.
Highland Park AWB..Not using AW for self-defense=No damage to right.
CO Magazine Limit...Not using firearm/magazine for self-defense=No damage to right.
SF Storage Ordinance...No arrest under statute=No damage to right.
MD CCW...No protected right to CCW=No damage to right.
NJ CCW...No protected right to CCW=No damage to right.
CA CCW...No protected right to CCW=No damage to right.

Caetano v Mass...Using stun-gun for self-defense and arrested=Damage to right...Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

http://12160.info/forum/topics/oath-...t-rally-speech


OATH KEEPERS MOLON LABE PLEDGE
We will never disarm. We will never surrender our military pattern, semi-automatic rifles and the full capacity magazines, parts, and ammunition that go with them. The fundamental purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military power of We the People so we will have effective means to resist tyranny. Regardless of what unholy, unconstitutional filth issues from the mouths of oath breakers in “Mordor on the Potomac” our answer is MOLON LABE.
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force: Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”- Patrick Henry
We will not allow our children to be disarmed. We will pass on those military pattern rifles, magazines, and ammunition to our children and our children’s children.
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." – Tench Coxe, 1788
We will die in battle before we give up our arms and leave our children in slavery.
We will not register ourselves or our arms. Registration is the prerequisite to confiscation, which is the prerequisite to dictatorship and extermination. We will NOT be photographed, finger-printed, tracked, and subjected to psych-evaluations like convicted sex-offenders just for owning semi-automatic rifles. Doing so is itself an act of surrender and submission, taking the mark of the slave (it is akin to taking the mark of the Beast).
We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people or compel registration
The attempt to disarm the people on April 19, 1775 was the spark of open conflict in the American Revolution. It was an act of war, and our forefathers fought back in justified, righteous self-defense of their natural rights. Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason. Those of us who are still current serving will not enforce any attempt to register either gun owners or guns, or to ban the sale, possession, or transfer of any semi-automatic rifles, handguns, or full capacity ammunition magazines, which are precisely the kinds of weapons the American people need to defend their lives and liberty.
We will interpose ourselves between the people and the oath breakers and traitors who try to disarm them.
We will step in between the people in our communities and any oath breaker who attempts to carry out such orders, regardless of their title, their office, their uniform, or who sent them. When they step outside the law – outside the Constitution – they are no better than violent street criminals and we will protect the people from them.
We will keep the oaths we swore to almighty God to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
That oath does not expire until we do.
American patriots, Oath Keepers, what say you?
Will you pledge the same?
__________________
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 illegitimate government.

“By the way I call it "moral obedience" rather than "civil disobedience" because compiling with God's law can never be "disobedient". 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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2017, 10:29 PM #822
Nobody's Avatar
Nobody Nobody is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,047
Nobody Nobody is offline
Senior Member
Nobody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,047
Was it heard today? Or will we not find out till Monday?

NOBODY
Nobody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19th, 2017, 12:44 AM #823
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 195
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanGuy48 View Post
How are MD, NJ and CA CCW restrictions not damaging to the right? Any infringement on a right is damaging it seems to me.
Because Scalia said so in Heller.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, (2008)

" For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. "

Not from Heller:

" Robertson v Baldwin 165 U.S. 275 (1897) " .....the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;.." "
777GSOTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19th, 2017, 04:32 AM #824
boundlessdyad's Avatar
boundlessdyad boundlessdyad is offline
boundlessdyad
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: HoCo
Posts: 16,238
boundlessdyad boundlessdyad is offline
boundlessdyad
boundlessdyad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: HoCo
Posts: 16,238
Personally I am good with open carry as the right. It will simply force legislatures in snowflake states like Maryland to make CCW easy. They'd much rather give out permits like candy than have us walking around with .50 cal Desert Eagles in plain view.
boundlessdyad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19th, 2017, 06:16 AM #825
Schipperke's Avatar
Schipperke Schipperke is offline
Capt. Snarky
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Монтгомери
Posts: 12,099
Schipperke Schipperke is offline
Capt. Snarky
Schipperke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Монтгомери
Posts: 12,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcfixer View Post
Exactly.!! I'm not going to ask permission on what type of firearm I can buy. AR or otherwise. I'm not going to ask permission to carry a pistol for self defense and not going to ask permission to defend myself.

You live in the wrong state then..
Schipperke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19th, 2017, 06:29 AM #826
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hazzard County
Posts: 2,491
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hazzard County
Posts: 2,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody View Post
Was it heard today? Or will we not find out till Monday?

NOBODY
It would have only been discussed, and Monday.
Kharn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19th, 2017, 08:13 AM #827
Nobody's Avatar
Nobody Nobody is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,047
Nobody Nobody is offline
Senior Member
Nobody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kharn View Post
It would have only been discussed, and Monday.

What I meant and thanks

Nobody
Nobody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19th, 2017, 09:13 AM #828
DanGuy48 DanGuy48 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 1,980
DanGuy48 DanGuy48 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 1,980
I still have a bad feeling about this.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Member MSI, SAF
NRA certified RSO, Basic Pistol, Home Firearm Safety
Work hard, shoot straight, play fair, fight dirty
DanGuy48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19th, 2017, 09:15 AM #829
swinokur's Avatar
swinokur swinokur is offline
In a State of Denial
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stalag Montgomery
Posts: 37,531
swinokur swinokur is offline
In a State of Denial
swinokur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Stalag Montgomery
Posts: 37,531
can't hurt.
.
Attached Images
 
__________________
swinokur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19th, 2017, 11:45 AM #830
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 427
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally Posted by 777GSOTB View Post
Because Scalia said so in Heller.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, (2008)

" For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. "

Not from Heller:

" Robertson v Baldwin 165 U.S. 275 (1897) " .....the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;.." "
Heller was not a CCW case, so it did not say CCW is not part of 2A. He said there was historical precedent and that Heller does not conflict with it.

There is a valid reason that CCW is part of 2A and was demonstrated by the Peruta 3 judge panel. It was over tuned by the en banc panel because Peruta failed to address the historical prohibition

Historically only criminals would carry concealed. Today is different. Even the police carry concealed. The historical precedent really says don't let criminals carry arms.
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19th, 2017, 11:56 AM #831
Nobody's Avatar
Nobody Nobody is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,047
Nobody Nobody is offline
Senior Member
Nobody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,047
My wish for this is. SCOTUS says g&'s is OK but you must allow OC.

Best out come for us I believe

Nobody
Nobody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19th, 2017, 12:02 PM #832
Inigoes's Avatar
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 36,209
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
Inigoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 36,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody View Post
My wish for this is. SCOTUS says g&'s is OK but you must allow OC.

Best out come for us I believe

Nobody
A manner must be allowed, "Bear arms" can mean either! If one is disliked, the other must be allowed.

The middle of the road stance: albeit regulated, pass a background check and whallah - carry permit. Bad guys still not allowed to have guns.
__________________
Life is tough, life is tougher when you are stupid.
Inigoes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19th, 2017, 01:03 PM #833
Fox123's Avatar
Fox123 Fox123 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Rosedale, MD
Posts: 2,620
Fox123 Fox123 is online now
Senior Member
Fox123's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Rosedale, MD
Posts: 2,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody View Post
My wish for this is. SCOTUS says g&'s is OK but you must allow OC.

Best out come for us I believe

Nobody
If it is specific to handguns great.


If it's just arms then MD will argue it is already allowed with rifles and shotguns.
Fox123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 19th, 2017, 08:46 PM #834
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 195
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
Heller was not a CCW case, so it did not say CCW is not part of 2A.
Well, machine guns and shot-barrel shotguns had nothing to do with Heller and it was concluded, in Heller, that there was no right to possess them under the 2nd Amendment....Thank you Alan Gura.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
He said there was historical precedent and that Heller does not conflict with it.
He, as in Scalia, never said that. Please quote where you think he said that in Heller...Thanks.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
There is a valid reason that CCW is part of 2A and was demonstrated by the Peruta 3 judge panel. It was over tuned by the en banc panel because Peruta failed to address the historical prohibition.
Not true, the en banc decision overturned the panel because Heller said a MAJORITY of 19th century courts have prohibited concealed carry under the 2nd Amendment and state analogues. So obviously, Scalia thinks the majority wins the argument on concealed carry and so did the en banc panel..Otherwise, why even mention that when Heller had nothing to do with concealed carry.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
Historically only criminals would carry concealed. Today is different. Even the police carry concealed. The historical precedent really says don't let criminals carry arms.
When Norman v Florida gets briefed up to the SCOTUS and open carry without a license wins the day. States will then allow, concealed carry in the same fashion to better meet modern time carry preferences. Peruta will have certiorari denied.
777GSOTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2017, 01:21 AM #835
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 427
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally Posted by 777GSOTB View Post
Well, machine guns and shot-barrel shotguns had nothing to do with Heller and it was concluded, in Heller, that there was no right to possess them under the 2nd Amendment....Thank you Alan Gura.

He, as in Scalia, never said that. Please quote where you think he said that in Heller...Thanks.

Not true, the en banc decision overturned the panel because Heller said a MAJORITY of 19th century courts have prohibited concealed carry under the 2nd Amendment and state analogues. So obviously, Scalia thinks the majority wins the argument on concealed carry and so did the en banc panel..Otherwise, why even mention that when Heller had nothing to do with concealed carry.

When Norman v Florida gets briefed up to the SCOTUS and open carry without a license wins the day. States will then allow, concealed carry in the same fashion to better meet modern time carry preferences. Peruta will have certiorari denied.
This is what SCOTUS has said on the matter (holding 2 Heller)
Quote:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
There is no mention of machine guns or short barreled shotguns in the holding of Heller. The best that can be said is that the dicta does not support the overturning of the NFA.

The actual limits of the amendment are not specified all we really know is that it is not unlimited. With respect to CCW cases all we really know is that they have been upheld in the past. It specifically mentions them as examples. These past cases create the historical precedent.

Heller was the first case to perform a historical analysis. The only reason that CCW cases are mentioned is that it is part of the historical analysis.

The en banc panel said "Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public." Post 6 contains more of the quote. It does not say Heller said it. It simply says historical precedent (sources)

I am not sure why you think Norman is any different than any of the other cases. It is an individual right that was curtailed due to public safety. I created a list of many of them, where lawyers lost due to public safety. Apparently I left Norman off the list although I listed etc to indicate that it was not an exhaustive list. It will likely get passed over by SCOTUS since this happens to all individual rights.

You happen to be wrong about Caetano. SCOTUS never said MA violated the 2A. It said you could not used the excuse that an arm never existed in 1791 as a reason to uphold the law. MA simply decided to concede the case instead of retrying the case.
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2017, 05:07 AM #836
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 195
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
There is no mention of machine guns or short barreled shotguns in the holding of Heller. The best that can be said is that the dicta does not support the overturning of the NFA.
You are completely wrong here.

" M16 and the like " and " like the short-barrel shotgun in Miller "


Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
The actual limits of the amendment are not specified all we really know is that it is not unlimited. With respect to CCW cases all we really know is that they have been upheld in the past. It specifically mentions them as examples. These past cases create the historical precedent.
This is exactly why the 9th concluded that concealed carry is not a right.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
Heller was the first case to perform a historical analysis. The only reason that CCW cases are mentioned is that it is part of the historical analysis.
Right...And in a light that illustrates that it can be prohibited under the " 2nd Amendment and state analogues. "


Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
The en banc panel said "Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public." Post 6 contains more of the quote. It does not say Heller said it. It simply says historical precedent (sources)
Right...And with the blessing of Hellers historical analysis in a light that concealed carry can be prohibited under the " 2nd Amendment and state analogues."...Which is why they will not take Peruta for review.



Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
I am not sure why you think Norman is any different than any of the other cases. It is an individual right that was curtailed due to public safety. I created a list of many of them, where lawyers lost due to public safety. Apparently I left Norman off the list although I listed etc to indicate that it was not an exhaustive list. It will likely get passed over by SCOTUS since this happens to all individual rights.
Norman was actually damaged under Florida statute. If there is no personal damage to ones rights, the SCOTUS will not take the case. The only other actual damage while exercising ones right to self-defense was Caetano...And amazingly, the SCOTUS gave it review.



Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
You happen to be wrong about Caetano. SCOTUS never said MA violated the 2A. It said you could not used the excuse that an arm never existed in 1791 as a reason to uphold the law. MA simply decided to concede the case instead of retrying the case.
Actually, I never said " MA violated the 2A". That's right, MA can't use that analogy to prohibit an arm in common use...Not to difficult to read between the lines on this...Which means it's protected under the 2nd Amendment just like Scalia stated in Heller...." in common use " And stun-guns are in common use.

Peruta will get certiorari denied and Norman will get a grant.
777GSOTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2017, 05:58 AM #837
motorcoachdoug's Avatar
motorcoachdoug motorcoachdoug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Demcratic Soscial Rublik of Md,Socialist Cnty of Montgomery,1/3 of the 3 that rule the state,
Posts: 1,067
motorcoachdoug motorcoachdoug is offline
Senior Member
motorcoachdoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Demcratic Soscial Rublik of Md,Socialist Cnty of Montgomery,1/3 of the 3 that rule the state,
Posts: 1,067
And I get to keep learning here more and more legal arguments between our legal members. Mabe it should be called the ,"The MSI Circus where lawyers come to do battle against each other"JK I have learned a lot reading in this form. Please keep it up so I may and others may learn more....
motorcoachdoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2017, 07:06 AM #838
boundlessdyad's Avatar
boundlessdyad boundlessdyad is offline
boundlessdyad
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: HoCo
Posts: 16,238
boundlessdyad boundlessdyad is offline
boundlessdyad
boundlessdyad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: HoCo
Posts: 16,238
In my completely non legal opinion, I believe it will be open carry that wins the day for us. If it is Norman so be it. We may wish that concealed carry is the "right" but we should all appreciate that history may dictate otherwise. If that ends up being the case the road to shall issue concealed carry should be much smoother once open carry is recognized as a protected right.
boundlessdyad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2017, 11:09 AM #839
Inigoes's Avatar
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 36,209
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
Inigoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 36,209
the NFA and GCA68 arguments, have already been ruled constitutional.

Only the Hughes Amendment remains to be challenged.
__________________
Life is tough, life is tougher when you are stupid.
Inigoes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2017, 11:26 AM #840
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hazzard County
Posts: 2,491
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hazzard County
Posts: 2,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inigoes View Post
the NFA and GCA68 arguments, have already been ruled constitutional.

Only the Hughes Amendment remains to be challenged.
It was, in US v Stewart in 2003. It was GVR'ed in light of Raich.
Wikipedia page on the case


   
Kharn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
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 -5. The time now is 11:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2017, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service