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

Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 21st, 2017, 08:48 PM #431
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,175
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
kcbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
I do understand what you said,
Clearly you don't. See below.


Quote:
but you don't seem to grasp what I am saying.

While I agree that you did not explicitly state that SCOTUS is destroying the original meaning, it does seem an appropriate inference given what you did say and that there is a difference between what you say the scope is and what SCOTUS says.
Yes, there is a difference, and I call it out below.


Quote:
The reason that I am emphasizing the entire scope is that it may change how to look at a particular situation. I agree that you are only looking at part of the scope and that is a problem because there may be other parts that narrow the scope. The part I am referring to are the "dangerous and unusual" weapons that Blackstone (and Heller) referred to.
Well, if that's the part you're referring to, then you must realize the context under which that limitation arises. It arises from bear. In particular, it arises from the concept of "affray" in which "dangerous and unusual" weapons are borne in public such that they cause fear in the people around them.

And this is where it becomes clear that you don't really understand what I said. Because I said this:

Quote:
Note that I refer to keep, not bear.
My entire argument was in that context only. But the "dangerous and unusual" discussion arises not from keep, but from bear, something that I agree has a different originally-understood scope.


Quote:
While I don't know exactly what that means, my understanding is that one class of weapon that falls into this category are concealable weapons. Your statement that the 2A applies to ALL weapons is clearly false based on Blackstone.
No, a claim that 2A's protection of bear applies to all weapons is clearly false based on Blackstone. But that is not my claim. My claim is that the protection of keep applies to all weapons. More precisely, that the situation the founders had just come out of was such that it is ludicrous to believe that they would not want to protect private ownership of the very types of weapons they relied upon for their victory over the British, especially after all their talk of liberty. While it's still possible that they did not wish to see such weapons protected, SCOTUS has certainly presented no evidence to that effect that I'm aware of, much less any evidence that would override such a basic and obvious logical conclusion (put another way, to accuse the founders of not wanting to see protection of the weapons they used to win the war is to accuse the founders of irrationality, as if the founders said "gosh, it was really lucky the British didn't ban private ownership of all of those arms we used to defeat them, but they're so scary that we just can't bring ourselves to protect that ownership now even though we wouldn't even be talking about this now without them" ).

Moreover, Blackstone precedes the American Revolution. While it is useful for understanding the foundation of the right to arms as understood by the founders, it is not a sufficient basis for deducing limitations on the right that they believed to be in place, since the reason the founders fought the war of independence in the first place was to free themselves from the tyranny of the English, which clearly must include getting out from underneath any limitations in English law they believed to be invalid.


Quote:
The problem with machine guns is that SCOTUS cannot definitively state that it is not a "dangerous and unusual" weapon. The record in Heller did not address machine guns nor did it really address what exactly is meant by "dangerous and unusual". All they could decide was that handguns in the home were not "dangerous and unusual".
I agree, what SCOTUS actually explicitly decided was very limited indeed. Nevertheless, the dicta is relatively clear with respect to machine guns (more precisely, "weapons that are most useful in military service"), going so far as to claim that the fit between the protected right and the prefatory clause's announced purpose can be so loose as to make the protected right arbitrarily close to wholly unsuitable for the prefatory clause's announced purpose, thus justifying a claim that the 2nd Amendment doesn't prohibit bans on military weapons such as machine guns. It's among the worst kind of legal sophistry that I've seen, most especially when it's said in the very same decision that says that the scope of the right is that which was originally understood at the time of the 2nd Amendment's ratification. One doesn't announce a purpose for something in a foundational document if one doesn't intend that something to always be at least sufficient for that purpose, but that is exactly what SCOTUS is essentially claiming the founders did. What kind of imbecile would believe that of the founders?!?

Last edited by kcbrown; October 22nd, 2017 at 01:57 AM.
kcbrown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2017, 11:07 AM #432
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 448
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Clearly you don't. See below.




Yes, there is a difference, and I call it out below.




Well, if that's the part you're referring to, then you must realize the context under which that limitation arises. It arises from bear. In particular, it arises from the concept of "affray" in which "dangerous and unusual" weapons are borne in public such that they cause fear in the people around them.

And this is where it becomes clear that you don't really understand what I said. Because I said this:



My entire argument was in that context only. But the "dangerous and unusual" discussion arises not from keep, but from bear, something that I agree has a different originally-understood scope.




No, a claim that 2A's protection of bear applies to all weapons is clearly false based on Blackstone. But that is not my claim. My claim is that the protection of keep applies to all weapons. More precisely, that the situation the founders had just come out of was such that it is ludicrous to believe that they would not want to protect private ownership of the very types of weapons they relied upon for their victory over the British, especially after all their talk of liberty. While it's still possible that they did not wish to see such weapons protected, SCOTUS has certainly presented no evidence to that effect that I'm aware of, much less any evidence that would override such a basic and obvious logical conclusion (put another way, to accuse the founders of not wanting to see protection of the weapons they used to win the war is to accuse the founders of irrationality, as if the founders said "gosh, it was really lucky the British didn't ban private ownership of all of those arms we used to defeat them, but they're so scary that we just can't bring ourselves to protect that ownership now even though we wouldn't even be talking about this now without them" ).

Moreover, Blackstone precedes the American Revolution. While it is useful for understanding the foundation of the right to arms as understood by the founders, it is not a sufficient basis for deducing limitations on the right that they believed to be in place, since the reason the founders fought the war of independence in the first place was to free themselves from the tyranny of the English, which clearly must include getting out from underneath any limitations in English law they believed to be invalid.




I agree, what SCOTUS actually explicitly decided was very limited indeed. Nevertheless, the dicta is relatively clear with respect to machine guns (more precisely, "weapons that are most useful in military service"), going so far as to claim that the fit between the protected right and the prefatory clause's announced purpose can be so loose as to make the protected right arbitrarily close to wholly unsuitable for the prefatory clause's announced purpose, thus justifying a claim that the 2nd Amendment doesn't prohibit bans on military weapons such as machine guns. It's among the worst kind of legal sophistry that I've seen, most especially when it's said in the very same decision that says that the scope of the right is that which was originally understood at the time of the 2nd Amendment's ratification. One doesn't announce a purpose for something in a foundational document if one doesn't intend that something to always be at least sufficient for that purpose, but that is exactly what SCOTUS is essentially claiming the founders did. What kind of imbecile would believe that of the founders?!?
I understand that you want to continue to make a straw man argument. I do understand you want to ignore the bearing part of the scope. The 2A is about keeping AND bearing arms. The reason you keep something is to use (bear) it. If there is no legitimate way to use something why should you be able to keep it? This is rationale behind the historic prohibition on concealed carry, there was no legitimate reason to do it.
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2017, 11:15 AM #433
Southwest Chuck's Avatar
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
A Calguns Interloper.. ;)
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: CA
Posts: 384
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
A Calguns Interloper.. ;)
Southwest Chuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: CA
Posts: 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Clearly you don't. See below.




Yes, there is a difference, and I call it out below.




Well, if that's the part you're referring to, then you must realize the context under which that limitation arises. It arises from bear. In particular, it arises from the concept of "affray" in which "dangerous and unusual" weapons are borne in public such that they cause fear in the people around them.

And this is where it becomes clear that you don't really understand what I said. Because I said this:



My entire argument was in that context only. But the "dangerous and unusual" discussion arises not from keep, but from bear, something that I agree has a different originally-understood scope.




No, a claim that 2A's protection of bear applies to all weapons is clearly false based on Blackstone. But that is not my claim. My claim is that the protection of keep applies to all weapons. More precisely, that the situation the founders had just come out of was such that it is ludicrous to believe that they would not want to protect private ownership of the very types of weapons they relied upon for their victory over the British, especially after all their talk of liberty. While it's still possible that they did not wish to see such weapons protected, SCOTUS has certainly presented no evidence to that effect that I'm aware of, much less any evidence that would override such a basic and obvious logical conclusion (put another way, to accuse the founders of not wanting to see protection of the weapons they used to win the war is to accuse the founders of irrationality, as if the founders said "gosh, it was really lucky the British didn't ban private ownership of all of those arms we used to defeat them, but they're so scary that we just can't bring ourselves to protect that ownership now even though we wouldn't even be talking about this now without them" ).

Moreover, Blackstone precedes the American Revolution. While it is useful for understanding the foundation of the right to arms as understood by the founders, it is not a sufficient basis for deducing limitations on the right that they believed to be in place, since the reason the founders fought the war of independence in the first place was to free themselves from the tyranny of the English, which clearly must include getting out from underneath any limitations in English law they believed to be invalid.




I agree, what SCOTUS actually explicitly decided was very limited indeed. Nevertheless, the dicta is relatively clear with respect to machine guns (more precisely, "weapons that are most useful in military service"), going so far as to claim that the fit between the protected right and the prefatory clause's announced purpose can be so loose as to make the protected right arbitrarily close to wholly unsuitable for the prefatory clause's announced purpose, thus justifying a claim that the 2nd Amendment doesn't prohibit bans on military weapons such as machine guns. It's among the worst kind of legal sophistry that I've seen, most especially when it's said in the very same decision that says that the scope of the right is that which was originally understood at the time of the 2nd Amendment's ratification. One doesn't announce a purpose for something in a foundational document if one doesn't intend that something to always be at least sufficient for that purpose, but that is exactly what SCOTUS is essentially claiming the founders did. What kind of imbecile would believe that of the founders?!?
Take your pick, KC .....



Always trying to be of service Sir !

__________________
.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck(on CGN) View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, CRPA, NRA, CRPF, MSI etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Southwest Chuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2017, 02:48 PM #434
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,175
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
kcbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
I understand that you want to continue to make a straw man argument.
It's not a straw man argument. The argument is about the contours of the right that the 2nd Amendment protects.


Quote:
I do understand you want to ignore the bearing part of the scope. The 2A is about keeping AND bearing arms.
Yes, it is. But that doesn't mean that the arms which are protected are only those for which protection of both keep and bear apply. Which is to say, that doesn't automatically mean that the scope of "keep" is the same as the scope of "bear".

For instance, even if "keep" of gunboats is, per the logic I supplied previously, protected, "bear" of them wouldn't necessarily be (if it's even meaningful to apply "bear" to gunboats at all). Keep of cannons would also be protected by the same logic, but "bear" might well not be, given the basis of "affray".


Quote:
The reason you keep something is to use (bear) it. If there is no legitimate way to use something why should you be able to keep it?
No, this is quite wrong. You don't keep something (especially military arms) only for the purpose of using it (i.e, with intent to use it irrespective of other factors), you keep it in case you have to use it. This is a crucial, argument-killing difference.

The protection of "bear" is in place so that people can protect themselves and others in peace time. More precisely, it's so that they will not be prevented from timely access to the means to defend themselves and others in peace time, particularly in public. The protection of "keep" is in place so that the people will have the means to defend themselves in both peacetime (through "bear") and what amounts to a time of war, whether that war be against a foreign power or against a domestic one. In the case of a war against a foreign power, there is no need for protection of the right to bear since the government in that case will clearly not object to the use of the weapons in question (one presumes that it would invoke its militia regulatory powers in that case in order to ensure that the weapons are used in a controlled fashion). In the case of a war against a domestic power, it is meaningless to even talk about protection of "bear", since a domestic government has gone tyrannical in that case anyway. The purpose of the protection of "keep" of military weapons and others that are not protected for "bear" is so that the people are not prevented from having the means to preserve the security of a free state.


Quote:
This is rationale behind the historic prohibition on concealed carry, there was no legitimate reason to do it.
Yes, and that is where your whole analysis is incorrect. There is a legitimate reason to protect "keep" of weapons that don't also have protection of "bear", and the 2nd Amendment even goes as far as to state it: to ensure that the people are not prevented from having the means to preserve the security of a free state. The people cannot fight with what they don't have, and failure to protect ownership of that which is needed to preserve the security of a free state is a mistake a free people get to make only once.


The founders had just come out of a shooting war in which privately owned weapons of all kinds were instrumental in their victory. Who would believe that those same founders would then understand the scope of the right in such a way that ownership of those very weapons would not be protected, even if they understood the scope of "bear" to not extend to those weapons? Such a belief is tantamount to belief that the founders were morons, cowards, or both, too stupid ("duhhrrr ... I wonder if we should protect those weapons that just saved our butts ...") or cowardly ("golly gee I sure am glad we had those weapons, but someone might get hurt if we protect private ownership of them!") to protect the very weapons that won them the war, most especially given the protection's stated purpose! It is arrogant presumption to insist that the weapons protected for "keep" must be limited to those protected for "bear" (those protected for "bear" must clearly also be protected for "keep", since one cannot "bear" what one does not have, and thus the weapons protected for "keep" are logically a superset of those protected for "bear"). The above logic demands that much more than mere presumption be supplied in order to sustain such an assertion.

Only substantial and clear evidence that the founders and their contemporaries believed, after the American Revolution (why? Because an experience such as the American Revolution could easily have influenced their thinking on the subject), that only the weapons one had a right to "bear" would be the ones that one had a right to "keep", will do. Blackstone doesn't cut it for this.

Last edited by kcbrown; October 23rd, 2017 at 10:21 PM.
kcbrown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2017, 12:17 PM #435
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 448
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 448
Apparently Kolbe filed a reply on 20 Oct and the case is scheduled for the 9 Nov conference.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/17-127.html

I have not seen the reply brief posted yet.
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2017, 12:41 PM #436
balttigger's Avatar
balttigger balttigger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Middle River, MD
Posts: 2,493
Images: 5
balttigger balttigger is offline
Senior Member
balttigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Middle River, MD
Posts: 2,493
Images: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
Apparently Kolbe filed a reply on 20 Oct and the case is scheduled for the 9 Nov conference.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/17-127.html

I have not seen the reply brief posted yet.
Thank you for getting this thread back on track. I was about to unsubscribe....
__________________
"If I ever kill you, you will be awake, you will be facing me, and you will be armed."
"If your hand touches metal, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet I will END you."
~ Capt. Malcolm Reynolds
balttigger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2017, 02:03 PM #437
Inigoes's Avatar
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 36,337
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
Inigoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 36,337
The reply from 10/10

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...it-of-Cert.pdf
__________________
Life is tough, life is tougher when you are stupid.
Inigoes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2017, 02:15 PM #438
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 448
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inigoes View Post
That is the Brief in Opposition filed by the state. Kolbe filed a reply brief to the state on the 20th. I have not seen the Kolbe reply brief posted.
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2017, 05:15 PM #439
MULE-JK's Avatar
MULE-JK MULE-JK is offline
Stiff Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Mt. Airy
Posts: 62
MULE-JK MULE-JK is offline
Stiff Member
MULE-JK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Mt. Airy
Posts: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
It's not a straw man argument. The argument is about the contours of the right that the 2nd Amendment protects.




Yes, it is. But that doesn't mean that the arms which are protected are only those for which protection of both keep and bear apply. Which is to say, that doesn't automatically mean that the scope of "keep" is the same as the scope of "bear".

For instance, even if "keep" of gunboats is, per the logic I supplied previously, protected, "bear" of them wouldn't necessarily be (if it's even meaningful to apply "bear" to gunboats at all). Keep of cannons would also be protected by the same logic, but "bear" might well not be, given the basis of "affray".




No, this is quite wrong. You don't keep something (especially military arms) only for the purpose of using it (i.e, with intent to use it irrespective of other factors), you keep it in case you have to use it. This is a crucial, argument-killing difference.

The protection of "bear" is in place so that people can protect themselves and others in peace time. More precisely, it's so that they will not be prevented from timely access to the means to defend themselves and others in peace time, particularly in public. The protection of "keep" is in place so that the people will have the means to defend themselves in both peacetime (through "bear") and what amounts to a time of war, whether that war be against a foreign power or against a domestic one. In the case of a war against a foreign power, there is no need for protection of the right to bear since the government in that case will clearly not object to the use of the weapons in question (one presumes that it would invoke its militia regulatory powers in that case in order to ensure that the weapons are used in a controlled fashion). In the case of a war against a domestic power, it is meaningless to even talk about protection of "bear", since a domestic government has gone tyrannical in that case anyway. The purpose of the protection of "keep" of military weapons and others that are not protected for "bear" is so that the people are not prevented from having the means to preserve the security of a free state.




Yes, and that is where your whole analysis is incorrect. There is a legitimate reason to protect "keep" of weapons that don't also have protection of "bear", and the 2nd Amendment even goes as far as to state it: to ensure that the people are not prevented from having the means to preserve the security of a free state. The people cannot fight with what they don't have, and failure to protect ownership of that which is needed to preserve the security of a free state is a mistake a free people get to make only once.


The founders had just come out of a shooting war in which privately owned weapons of all kinds were instrumental in their victory. Who would believe that those same founders would then understand the scope of the right in such a way that ownership of those very weapons would not be protected, even if they understood the scope of "bear" to not extend to those weapons? Such a belief is tantamount to belief that the founders were morons, cowards, or both, too stupid ("duhhrrr ... I wonder if we should protect those weapons that just saved our butts ...") or cowardly ("golly gee I sure am glad we had those weapons, but someone might get hurt if we protect private ownership of them!") to protect the very weapons that won them the war, most especially given the protection's stated purpose! It is arrogant presumption to insist that the weapons protected for "keep" must be limited to those protected for "bear" (those protected for "bear" must clearly also be protected for "keep", since one cannot "bear" what one does not have, and thus the weapons protected for "keep" are logically a superset of those protected for "bear"). The above logic demands that much more than mere presumption be supplied in order to sustain such an assertion.

Only substantial and clear evidence that the founders and their contemporaries believed, after the American Revolution (why? Because an experience such as the American Revolution could easily have influenced their thinking on the subject), that only the weapons one had a right to "bear" would be the ones that one had a right to "keep", will do. Blackstone doesn't cut it for this.

Let me make this simple. The reason they put keep AND bear in there was to make sure an over reaching government couldn't state that owning is ok and bearing is not. You cannot separate keep and bear when the statement is keep AND bear. There is no keep and SOMETIMES bear no matter how many words you use to try and deflect. The whole militia part is to further expand that not only can you keep and bear, you can organize a well regulated militia to fight. None of the 2nd is to limit the people. It is to clarify that limitation is unacceptable. The militia is supplied and manned by citizens with whatever weapons/supplies are necessary, i.e well regulated. The militia is made up of citizens that keep and bear arms whenever they see fit, not when the government says it's ok. It does not say that any one part is necessary for the other. It does not say that the government can tell you when, where or why you may exercise these rights. To do so would be counterintuitive to the entire amendment.

Concisely: You cannot have a militia if you are unable to bear arms. You cannot bear arms if you cannot keep them. Militias are not necessary to keep and bear arms, but to have a militia you must be able to keep and bear arms. There is no point to keep arms if you cannot bear them. It's that simple.

YOU MAY KEEP THE PEN, BUT YOU MAY NOT WRITE!!!!

YOU CAN HAVE A VOICE, BUT YOU MAY NOT USE IT!!!!

YOU MAY CAST A VOTE, BUT WE MAY NOT COUNT IT!!!

YOU MAY HAVE A GUN, BUT YOU CANNOT LEAVE YOUR HOUSE WITH IT!!!!

So foolish all that sounds.

I love the part where you say(I'm paraphrasing)"the bearing part can be limited, because by the time you're fighting it doesn't matter what the government says". Yeah that sounds totally like what the Framers were going for.
MULE-JK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2017, 11:41 PM #440
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,175
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
kcbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by MULE-JK View Post
Let me make this simple. The reason they put keep AND bear in there was to make sure an over reaching government couldn't state that owning is ok and bearing is not.
Agreed.


Quote:
You cannot separate keep and bear when the statement is keep AND bear.
I agree with this as well.


Quote:
There is no keep and SOMETIMES bear no matter how many words you use to try and deflect.
Okay. How do you "bear" artillery?

Or are you going to insist that the militia be handicapped, limited only to the weapons that they can personally carry and individually use, when their duty is to preserve the security of a free state? Somehow, from what you say below, I suspect you're not going to insist on any such thing. But clarification would be good to have.


Quote:
The whole militia part is to further expand that not only can you keep and bear, you can organize a well regulated militia to fight.
I agree, but that's not all it's for. It's to make it clear that the weapons that are protected are, at a minimum, those that are necessary for the militia to be able to succeed in its duty.


Quote:
None of the 2nd is to limit the people. It is to clarify that limitation is unacceptable.
I don't disagree at all.

Nevertheless, the right that the 2nd Amendment protects does not necessarily encompass any and all things that can be used as weapons. I agree in principle that it should protect all weapons of any kind, since it simply says "arms", and it should protect "bear" of all weapons that can be borne.

But we're not talking about what the right should encompass. We're talking about what the founders believed it encompassed.


Quote:
The militia is supplied and manned by citizens with whatever weapons/supplies are necessary, i.e well regulated.
Yes, I completely agree, particularly with the "whatever weapons/supplies are necessary" part. That's the crux of the issue, and exactly why the militia clause is important: the militia has a duty, and it needs weapons of any/all kinds to fulfill that duty, and those weapons are not limited to those that individuals can carry.


Quote:
The militia is made up of citizens that keep and bear arms whenever they see fit, not when the government says it's ok.
Then where does the concept of "affray" fit into the picture, if at all?

Maybe the founders ditched the concept entirely. I have no idea about that. But even if they didn't, that would not limit the right to keep arms. And that's my point. The right to keep is not limited by the right to bear.


Quote:
It does not say that any one part is necessary for the other.
No, it doesn't, but clearly, you can't exercise a right to bear what you don't have a right to keep, so the right to keep must logically apply to a superset of what the right to bear does. But note that a "superset" can also mean that the sets are the same.


Quote:
It does not say that the government can tell you when, where or why you may exercise these rights. To do so would be counterintuitive to the entire amendment.
In principle, I agree. But again, what matters is what the founders thought. My only point is that the founders logically would have insisted on protecting keep of those arms that many/most would think the right to bear would be inapplicable to. But more importantly, even if the founders thought the right to bear was limited in some fashion, that doesn't automatically translate to those limitations applying to the right to keep.


Quote:
Concisely: You cannot have a militia if you are unable to bear arms. You cannot bear arms if you cannot keep them. Militias are not necessary to keep and bear arms, but to have a militia you must be able to keep and bear arms. There is no point to keep arms if you cannot bear them. It's that simple.
While true in a strict fashion, keep in mind that the purpose of protecting the right is so that the people may be prepared to deal with whatever situation the arms in question are appropriate to. The purpose of protecting the right to bear in public is so that people will have the means to immediately defend themselves while in public. To what peacetime threat would one respond to with artillery in public?

But threats do not exist only in peacetime, and that's where the right to keep comes into its own. The people must be able to respond to wartime threats as well with weaponry that might not be protected by the right to bear. Artillery is a possible example. I've no idea if the founders believed the right to bear to encompasses artillery, but if they didn't then they still almost certainly believed the right to keep encompasses it. Why? Because the people must be able to use such weaponry if the situation calls for it. And a domestic government gone tyrannical most certainly calls for it.


Quote:
I love the part where you say(I'm paraphrasing)"the bearing part can be limited, because by the time you're fighting it doesn't matter what the government says". Yeah that sounds totally like what the Framers were going for.
For you to paraphrase it like that means I must have said it very, very badly. That's not my point at all.

Let me put it this way. The 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and the right to bear. Where, exactly, is the protection of the right to bear when the government has gone tyrannical? Right. That protection doesn't exist under those circumstances. But nevertheless, that doesn't matter, because at that point, the people have the duty to bear arms against the rogue government anyway, no matter whether or not the right is "protected" in some fashion, and no matter whether or not it was previously understood that the people have the right to bear those arms in the first place.

But the right to keep is a different matter altogether. You cannot bear what you cannot keep, cannot fight with that which you don't have. Without the right to keep, the people will have nothing to respond to a tyrannical government with. And if the right to keep is limited to that which the right to bear covers, then the people will be handicapped (perhaps fatally so) if the right to bear doesn't cover all weapons, most especially those that cannot be carried by individuals.


I suppose another way of saying it is that the right to bear covers, at a minimum (because I agree that in principle, it should cover all weapons), those weapons the militia requires for peacetime duties, but the right to keep clearly must cover those weapons the militia requires for wartime duties (whether that war be against a foreign power or a domestic one). Bear cannot limit keep, even if bear is itself limited.

Even if the founders understood the right to bear to have limits in terms of the weapons it covers, those limits do not also apply to keep unless they separately understood those limits to apply to keep as well, precisely because the weapons the people need to be able to keep are a superset of the weapons they'd need to be able to bear in peacetime (which may mean that they're the same set, but not because bear would limit keep, but because keep would extend bear).


   
kcbrown is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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

Tags
#notmycircuitcourt, pissing contest


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 05:30 AM.


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