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

Join MD Shooters
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 29th, 2021, 10:30 PM #431
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 jcutonilli View Post
You seem to be missing the point. You correctly point out that the 1A was written broadly and OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T ALLOW ALL SPEECH. If we apply the Bliss argument to the 1A you would come to a different conclusion. Bliss would say that ALL SPEECH IS ALLOWED because there are no limitations written into the 1A.

If the Bliss argument became accepted, you would likely see court provide different explanations about why it was OBVIOUS NOT ALL SPEECH IS ALLOWED and states try and modify their constitution to address this issue. This is exactly what the courts and states did with respect to concealed carry.
All speech is allowed though. The only restrictions on speech are time, place & manner. I can say whatever I want to whomever I choose in any public public place. Including DC and Manhattan. I may not be allowed to use a bull horn. I may also be required to keep my clothes on. But I can say anything. And I can do so without a permit or a tax stamp.

I’ve heard auctioneers that may have to register themselves as bump stocks.
__________________
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.

ďThe 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.Ē
Ben Woods, Fairfax Country Board Meeting 12/3/19
HaveBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2021, 12:09 AM #432
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,707
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
To the degree that the contradicting evidence originates from the founding generation, your inclinations here are right, I think.

That said, it should be noted that, firstly, politicians are often inclined to pass laws to appeal to minority groups, so the presence of a law is most certainly not indicative of its majority support; and secondly, absence of majority support is not the same as active majority opposition, but it's the latter, and not the former, that's needed for a law to be legislatively struck (well, unless there's some "special interest" minority with a bunch of political influence that is also actively opposed to it). The point being that you can't use the presence of a law, even if it goes unchallenged, as an indication that the law reflects the thinking of the majority -- it only means that the majority doesn't have sufficient opposition to it to affect the political landscape.

So if the majority believed that concealed carry was "bad form" but didn't actively believe it should be illegal, and the politicians then made it illegal, it's likely that the majority wouldn't object terribly to that, despite their lack of belief that it should be illegal.

But that said, I suppose one could still legitimately conclude that the majority wouldn't, in those circumstances, believe that concealed carry was part of the right to bear, since a belief that something is a right usually results in active opposition to laws which forbid it. Then again, that conclusion could easily be a stretch. Consider "hate speech", for instance. A law forbidding it would probably not receive majority opposition even if most people believe it, at some level, to be a right. People are fickle creatures.

All of this ultimately adds a great deal of uncertainty as to how the founding generation actually thought about concealed carry. And if there's sufficient uncertainty about something which otherwise, per the plain meaning of the terms, is part of the right, then one should simply presume it to be part of the right and go from there. That is what presumption of liberty demands.
There certainly is not anything definitive about concealed carry, but the totality of the evidence does suggest that it was not part of the right.

Bliss does not really address the issue of concealed carry directly, the opinion was based on the lack of identified limits

Quote:
Do you think "or in the clothing or in a pocket" refers to some sort of new form of carry that none of us are aware of? That is an explicit part of the definition used in Heller.

The definition covers carry in general but explicitly talks about concealed carry (and open carry as well: "upon the person"). And that's the point: the definition that the Court uses for the 2nd Amendment's meaning of "bear" explicitly includes concealed carry. And if that definition includes concealed carry, then logically so does the 2nd Amendment's commandment that it shall not be infringed.

Heller, of course, is not without its internal contradictions, but nothing in it rises to the level of an explicit declaration that concealed carry prohibitions are allowable, only that they have been regarded that way by state courts in the past.

Everything hinges on the understanding of the right on the part of the founding generation and, especially, the reasons for that understanding.
"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.

In any case, it is used to define the term "bear" and not to define the limits of the right to which it refers. One can "bear" or carry to illegally kill someone, but I don't believe anyone would consider that protected by the 2A.
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2021, 12:26 AM #433
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,707
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by HaveBlue View Post
All speech is allowed though. The only restrictions on speech are time, place & manner. I can say whatever I want to whomever I choose in any public public place. Including DC and Manhattan. I may not be allowed to use a bull horn. I may also be required to keep my clothes on. But I can say anything. And I can do so without a permit or a tax stamp.

Iíve heard auctioneers that may have to register themselves as bump stocks.
Allow is not the most precise word in this situation. I would use the term protected. Not all speech is protected by the 1A. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

Quote:
common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury.
Time, place and manner apply to all speech as long as it is applied in a content neutral manner. A permit may be required depending on circumstances such as a parade or gathering.

Taking your cloths off may not necessarily be pornography. I would consider it hate speech, which is protected except in the case of imminent violence.
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2021, 01:56 AM #434
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,321
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Super Genius
kcbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
There certainly is not anything definitive about concealed carry, but the totality of the evidence does suggest that it was not part of the right.

Bliss does not really address the issue of concealed carry directly, the opinion was based on the lack of identified limits
Huh? The law before the Bliss court was explicitly about concealed carry. Of course the decision addresses the issue of concealed carry directly. How could it not when its purpose was to render judgment on that very issue?


Quote:
"In the clothing or in a pocket" does not necessarily mean concealed.
It does not always mean "completely concealed". But it includes "completely concealed", as well as "partially concealed".

At this point you're going beyond the ordinary meaning of the terms used, using unusual situations (most of the time, those who conceal their arms do so completely) to escape the plain meaning of the wording the Court intentionally used.


Quote:
Concealed tends to mean totally concealed. "In the clothing or in a pocket may refer to partially concealed arms.
There's a wide range of laws on this. Some concealed carry laws forbid carry (at least without a license) if the weapon is even partially concealed, with the exception of the weapon being obscured by its holster. As such, "concealed" can, depending on the law, actually include partial concealment.

And sure, the words the Court used can refer to partial concealment, but to insist on that subset alone as the conferred meaning is to insist on something other than the ordinary meaning of the words. If the Court intended the words to be limited to a subset of the ordinary meaning they convey, I fully expect it to say as much. It didn't, and therefore fully concealed carry is most certainly included because the words most certainly include that even if the phrase in question doesn't exclusively mean that.


Quote:
In any case, it is used to define the term "bear" and not to define the limits of the right to which it refers.
It's true that the definition doesn't fully define the limits of the right. But if the intentionally chosen definition explicitly includes something, as it does here, then it is disingenuous to later claim that said included thing is not referenced by the very text (here, that of the 2nd Amendment) that makes use of the term.


Quote:
One can "bear" or carry to illegally kill someone, but I don't believe anyone would consider that protected by the 2A.
That's a distinction without a difference, something that is generally knowable only in hindsight. And in any case, even if/when it is knowable in advance, it is not the carry itself that is at issue, it is the intent to offensively do harm that is. The 2nd Amendment protects your right to carry. It doesn't protect your right to use arms, or plan to use arms, in an offensive manner.
kcbrown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2021, 08:32 AM #435
trickg's Avatar
trickg trickg is offline
Guns 'n Drums
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Glen Burnie
Posts: 10,276
trickg trickg is offline
Guns 'n Drums
trickg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Glen Burnie
Posts: 10,276
I love how our resident legal experts are splitting hairs about what's what when we have absolutely no idea how SCOTUS is ultimately going to rule on this, or why.
__________________
TrickG
"My name is Gladiator" -- Maximus Decimus Meridius
trickg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2021, 08:48 AM #436
Inigoes's Avatar
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 41,674
Inigoes Inigoes is offline
Head'n for the hills
Inigoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SoMD / West PA
Posts: 41,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by trickg View Post
I love how our resident legal experts are splitting hairs about what's what when we have absolutely no idea how SCOTUS is ultimately going to rule on this, or why.
They need something to pass the time with until next year.
__________________
Life is tough, life is tougher when you are stupid.
Inigoes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2021, 11:54 AM #437
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,707
jcutonilli jcutonilli is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by trickg View Post
I love how our resident legal experts are splitting hairs about what's what when we have absolutely no idea how SCOTUS is ultimately going to rule on this, or why.
So we should discuss more important things like
https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=256471
https://www.mdshooters.com/showthrea...81#post6303881
jcutonilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2021, 11:55 AM #438
Bertfish's Avatar
Bertfish Bertfish is online now
Throw bread on me
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: White Marsh, MD
Posts: 10,578
Bertfish Bertfish is online now
Throw bread on me
Bertfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: White Marsh, MD
Posts: 10,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
He has a great point
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by clandestine View Post
Do not wear blindfolds when a man a putting his anus on your wiener.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADR View Post
I prefer a small house on a lot of land. Keep your family close and everyone else far away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RepublicOfFranklin View Post
Socialism and individual liberty cannot exist in the same space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StantonCree View Post
Whoever actually needed your post eats soup with their hands
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBert View Post
You are so cocksure that you are always right that you end up sticking your appendage in poop all of the time.
Bertfish is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2021, 01:20 PM #439
trickg's Avatar
trickg trickg is offline
Guns 'n Drums
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Glen Burnie
Posts: 10,276
trickg trickg is offline
Guns 'n Drums
trickg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Glen Burnie
Posts: 10,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertfish View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcutonilli View Post
He has a great point
Does he though? At least we can discuss the other with without having to actually know the law. The armchair barristers here are unreal, and the simple truth is, we have no idea what direction this is going to go, or what cases or writings are going to be cited as precedent. I'm actually a bit scared about this case - if it's ruled against us, we're kind a screwed from this point forward don't you think? I sure as hell hope that this case is watertight.

I love how you referenced a specific post I made. I apologize if I have a better memory than most of you, and shared the reference that Teratos made. I didn't start that thread - I only posted in it. FWIW, it seems to me that the thread in question is discussing the erosion of societal morals and ethics, and the other widespread problems that "progressivism" is creating. But hey, what do I know, right?

But what I won't do in this thread is pretend that I'm some kind of legal eagle who knows what's what, because I'm not. Can't tell you the the number of times I've posted something with the disclaimer, "IANAL."

Again, I hope this case breaks in our favor, but we've suffered so many defeats at the hands of the courts in the last 5-7 years, that I don't have much faith that it will.
__________________
TrickG
"My name is Gladiator" -- Maximus Decimus Meridius
trickg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2021, 01:25 PM #440
lazarus lazarus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 7,549
lazarus lazarus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 7,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by HaveBlue View Post
All speech is allowed though. The only restrictions on speech are time, place & manner. I can say whatever I want to whomever I choose in any public public place. Including DC and Manhattan. I may not be allowed to use a bull horn. I may also be required to keep my clothes on. But I can say anything. And I can do so without a permit or a tax stamp.

Iíve heard auctioneers that may have to register themselves as bump stocks.
Nope. You canít defame someone. You also canít 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 isnít 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.
lazarus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 5 (4 members and 1 guests)
DanGuy48, pcfixer, press1280, Ssblugsr
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 08:53 AM.


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