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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 1st, 2021, 07:46 PM #451
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 326
777GSOTB 777GSOTB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcfixer View Post
Just wonder?? What is reasonable? And OR what then is reasonable doubt when talking about restrictions in anything in Bill of Rights?
Taxes, such as license taxes, upon a right aren't reasonable.

U.S. Supreme Court
319 U.S. 105 (1943)
MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

"The tax imposed by the City of Jeannette is a flat license tax, the payment of which is a condition of the exercise of these constitutional privileges. The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment."

"It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant [319 U.S. 105, 113] if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax – a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution."

"It is claimed, however, that the ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of this license tax is whether the state has given something for which it can ask a return. That principle has wide applicability. State Tax Commission v. Aldrich, 316 U.S. 174, 62 S.Ct. 1008, 139 A.L.R. 1436, and cases cited. But it is quite irrelevant here. This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution."
777GSOTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2021, 08:47 PM #452
babalou's Avatar
babalou babalou is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Monkey County
Posts: 9,922
babalou babalou is online now
Senior Member
babalou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Monkey County
Posts: 9,922
So BoR are privileges and not rights.
__________________
SOTAR Alumnus
MD Designated Collector
Patriot Picket Member
babalou is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2021, 11:18 PM #453
Jim12's Avatar
Jim12 Jim12 is offline
Let Freedom Ring
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 26,170
Jim12 Jim12 is offline
Let Freedom Ring
Jim12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 26,170
Tossing this out there as a relevant resource:

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/05/01...k-book-review/


The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

Second Amendment
"The Right to Bear Arms" by Stephen Halbrook: Book Review

A book that may may help decide the Supreme Court's upcoming right to carry case.

David Kopel | 5.1.2021 8:16 PM

"The U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari to hear a major case on the right to bear arms, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett. By happy coincidence, the best book on the legal history of the right has just been published: Stephen P. Halbrook, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right of the People or a Privilege of the Ruling Class? Post Hill Press, 371 pages, $17.99, paperback.

Halbrook's book will be central to the Supreme Court case, just as Halbrook's previous work was for the Supreme Court's decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago—not only in direct citations, but also in the many original sources that Halbrook was the first to write about, and which the Court incorporated in its opinions. Indeed, Halbrook's scholarship was a foundation of McDonald case, for he had demonstrated in irrefutable detail that Congress passed the Fourteenth Amendment for the explicit purpose of, inter alia, protecting the right to arms of former slaves to keep and bear arms for personal and family defense.

As some readers may know, I have coauthored one book and two law review articles with Halbrook. (Supreme Court Gun Cases (2003); Miller versus Texas: Police Violence, Race Relations, Capital Punishment, and Gun-toting in Texas in the Nineteenth Century—and Today, 9 Journal of Law and Policy 737 (2001); Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the Early Republic, 7 William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal 347 (1999).)

Before becoming a lawyer, Halbrook was a philosophy professor at Tuskegee, Howard, and George Mason universities, and The Right to Bear Arms reflects his background. The book is legal history from early England to 2021, methodically and logically presented. The book is not about pro/con social science studies, and although it engages with post-Heller cases on the right to bear arms, most of the book covers the pre-Heller period.

At 377 pages, The Right to Bear Arms is the right length to thoroughly address its topic, supported by meticulous footnotes. Given Halbrook's role since 1981 as the leading modern scholar of Second Amendment legal history, it is no surprise that some parts of the Right to Bear Arms are derived from Halbrook's prior detailed work on particular subjects. For example, he addressed the American Revolution and the origin of the Second Amendment in The Founders' Second Amendment, addressed Reconstruction and the Fourteenth Amendment in Securing Civil Rights: Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, & the Right to Bear Arms, and the 1886 Supreme Court case Presser v. Illinois (against armed public parades) with the only law review to provide the full history of the case.

With citations in 122 federal cases, Halbrook also has a 3-0 record as the lead attorney in Supreme Court cases, including Printz v. United States, which held that the federal government may not order state and local officials to enforce federal laws. That case secured the legal foundation for decisions of many state and local governments not to assist the federal enforcement of various laws involving immigration, marijuana, or gun control. Any serious person involved in the legal debate over the right to bear arms will have to address the arguments in Halbrook's latest book.

Halbrook begins the story in the late thirteenth century, in the reign of England's King Edward I. About a third of the book is devoted to legal history of the United Kingdom, through the twenty-first century. Although the American Second Amendment was expressly intended and interpreted as being broader than the English right, the English right is the most important ancestor of the American one...."

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/05/01...k-book-review/
__________________
NRA Patriot Life
MSI Sustaining
SAF Life
JPFO
GOA
FPC
Jim12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2nd, 2021, 12:09 AM #454
Occam Occam is offline
Recovering Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Montgomery County
Posts: 13,314
Occam Occam is offline
Recovering Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Montgomery County
Posts: 13,314
While we're reminding folks of whose work helped give us Heller, it would be a serious disservice to gloss over Joyce Lee Malcolm, the "nice girl who saved the second amendment." She's an encyclopedic scholar of Britain's history leading up to, and our own history of and since the Revolution by which we parted ways. Her work played a direct role in preserving our individual right's protections by the SCOTUS.

https://www.nationalreview.com/magaz...ond-amendment/
Occam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2nd, 2021, 12:27 AM #455
HaveBlue's Avatar
HaveBlue HaveBlue is offline
HaveBlue
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Virginia
Posts: 564
HaveBlue HaveBlue is offline
HaveBlue
HaveBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Virginia
Posts: 564
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazarus View Post
Nope. You can’t defame someone. You also can’t issue threats of violence. A court would weigh in how imminent the threat of violence is or intention to intimidate.

If the nature of the speech is communication of a criminal conspiracy that also isn’t legal.

Speech is still regulated by the government and the constitution is clear some of that is fine. The rest SCOTUS has agree is not protected speech over the centuries. A lot of since
The early days.
Speech is not regulated. The is a tightly limited combination of content (in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy) and audience (voluntary vs involuntary or audience size).

Those ‘restrictions’ are about planning non-speech related crimes and deeply offending people.

I can walk down the street and say whatever I please to a friend or talk to the wind.
__________________
2A Bigot is more accurate. Calling them Antis is too coded and subtle.

bigot[ big-uh t ] noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

“The legal precendent we would set by allowing the legislature to selectively ignore enumerated rights at will, is the same mindset that 150 years ago led this country into a civil war.”
Ben Woods, Fairfax Country Board Meeting 12/3/19
HaveBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2nd, 2021, 01:53 AM #456
Bob A's Avatar
Bob A Bob A is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 18,748
Bob A Bob A is offline
Senior Member
Bob A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 18,748
I'd like to point out that Halbrook has written several books with "the right to bear arms" in the title. The book discussed above is a brand-new edition, published in paperback a week or so ago, and is available thru Amazon Smile, which will donate a fraction of my purchase price to the Second Amendment Foundation. This is probably the edition to get, if you must just get one.

While I'm at it, I always mention his landmark studies Gun Control in the Third Reich, Target Switzerland, and Gun Control in Nazi-Occupied France to see what has been attempted. It's enlightening to see how closely Maryland has followed the Nazi program. It's also interesting to read about the Swiss in WWII. They were much more at risk than people are aware, and the way they armed and defended their country and prevented invasion is fascinating. Too bad they gave it up to suck up more Euros.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by alucard0822 View Post
Big difference between "will use violence to impose my political beliefs on others" and "will use violence to defend myself from those imposing their political beliefs on me". The former is the main ingredient of genocide, the latter is the only thing that has ever prevented it.
The Hand That Signs The Paycheck Rules The World

Originally Posted by Deep Lurker:
Quote:
Disclaimer: “No criminals will be harmed in the passage of these gun control bills.”

Last edited by Bob A; May 2nd, 2021 at 01:06 PM.
Bob A is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2nd, 2021, 10:04 AM #457
wjackcooper wjackcooper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 678
wjackcooper wjackcooper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 678
“Barrett and Gorsuch have to choose between originalism and gun rights.”

Another progressive propaganda pump has counted to 5, panicked and is now trying to put a pro “gun control” spin on history.* The writer claims Scalia got it wrong and read the 2A backwards.* Progressives (including some historians and judges) have looked at the odds and now seem ready to mostly abandon their interest-balancing via intermediate scrutiny [public safety v the 2A] approach in favor of distorting the historical record.

Jim12 and Occam thanks for the links!

Regards
Jack

*https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...alia-guns.html

**Ninth Circuit holds there is no right to bear arms outside the home – Reason.com
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/04/01.../#more-8109659
wjackcooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2nd, 2021, 10:06 AM #458
Jim12's Avatar
Jim12 Jim12 is offline
Let Freedom Ring
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 26,170
Jim12 Jim12 is offline
Let Freedom Ring
Jim12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 26,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Occam View Post
While we're reminding folks of whose work helped give us Heller, it would be a serious disservice to gloss over Joyce Lee Malcolm, the "nice girl who saved the second amendment." She's an encyclopedic scholar of Britain's history leading up to, and our own history of and since the Revolution by which we parted ways. Her work played a direct role in preserving our individual right's protections by the SCOTUS.

https://www.nationalreview.com/magaz...ond-amendment/
Good info. Thanks for posting it. I bookmarked it.

Too bad the Duke Law Firearms Policy program speakers a week or so ago seemed to be so short on history.
__________________
NRA Patriot Life
MSI Sustaining
SAF Life
JPFO
GOA
FPC
Jim12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2nd, 2021, 10:09 AM #459
Jim12's Avatar
Jim12 Jim12 is offline
Let Freedom Ring
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 26,170
Jim12 Jim12 is offline
Let Freedom Ring
Jim12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 26,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob A View Post
I'd like to oint out that Halbrook has written several books with "the right to bear arms" in the title. The book discussed above is a brand-new edition, published in paperback a week or so ago, and is available thru Amazon Smile, which will donate a fraction of my purchase price to the Second Amendment Foundation. This is probably the edition to get, if you must just get one.

While I'm at it, I always mention his landmark studies Gun Control in the Third Reich, Target Switzerland, and Gun Control in Nazi-Occupied France to see what has been attempted. It's enlightening to see how closely Maryland has followed the Nazi program. It's also interesting to read about the Swiss in WWII. They were much more at risk than people are aware, and the way they armed and defended their country and prevented invasion is fascinating. Too bad they gave it up to suck up more Euros.
I ordered mine, and everything I buy from Amazon automatically generates a Smile donation to SAF.
__________________
NRA Patriot Life
MSI Sustaining
SAF Life
JPFO
GOA
FPC
Jim12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2nd, 2021, 10:11 AM #460
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 861
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 861
Quote:
"In the clothing or in a pocket" does not necessarily mean concealed. Concealed tends to mean totally concealed. "In the clothing or in a pocket may refer to partially concealed arms
That is a tortured read on this language that I hope no court adopts, and which would be an attack on reason itself.
Maestro Pistolero 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 -4. The time now is 11:13 AM.


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