Kolbe en banc decision

[MULE-JK]

Agreed.




I agree with this as well.




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.




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.




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.




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.




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.




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.




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.




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.




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).

Again I will try to keep it simple. Bear: to bring forth. To use the most limiting definition of bear(carry) doesn't work. I'll use one of your examples, but it works for any weapon you can't carry: A ship during the times the Framers lived. If the owners were not able to bear that ship during peace time it would rot, it also requires practice to use and train new crew and operators. It would also have been used to generate income. A ship at rest much like today is just a money pit in the water.

I do not believe the Framers had any intention of limitations when the amendment was written. I'm reading the amendment, I can understand what it says. I don't need to get into their minds and form an OPINION of what they were trying to say. It is written.

The problem is people can't fathom the thought of any citizen having the types of weapons you mention. There are unstable and immoral people and the thought terifies the average person, so they accept that politicians tear away at the 2nd and even support them in doing so. The problem is politicians are not doing it to protect anyone. They are doing it for their own gain, whatever that may be.

We the people have accepted that our neighbor shouldn't have an ICBM. We have given up that right and by default let the Federal Government have control of such weapons. It does not mean we do not still have that right. The power is always to be with the people, not the Government. The Government's powers are limited, not the people's.

 

[press1280]

Distributed for the November 9th conference.

 

[ironpony]

Distributed for the November 9th conference.

Is this good? My brain is fried from trying to read the last several pages.

 

[Inigoes]

Is this good? My brain is fried from trying to read the last several pages.

So far, the SCOTUS is willing to look at the arguments.

Then the wait begins until Nov 13th to see if the court flat out denies, accepts, or continue to contemplate the case.

 

[kcbrown]

Again I will try to keep it simple. Bear: to bring forth. To use the most limiting definition of bear(carry) doesn't work. I'll use one of your examples, but it works for any weapon you can't carry: A ship during the times the Framers lived. If the owners were not able to bear that ship during peace time it would rot, it also requires practice to use and train new crew and operators. It would also have been used to generate income. A ship at rest much like today is just a money pit in the water.

This, of course, is a great point, and one I was thinking about as well. Issues such as that can shed light on what the original intended meaning is.

I do not believe the Framers had any intention of limitations when the amendment was written. I'm reading the amendment, I can understand what it says. I don't need to get into their minds and form an OPINION of what they were trying to say. It is written.

Well, no.

The Constitution is a written document. Like any written document (and most any form of communication, really), it was written in order to convey a set of ideas. The reason an author goes to the trouble to write in the first place is to convey his ideas as he envisions. This is why, when the author of a document is available and you are not sure what they meant by something, you ask them what they meant, just as you would if they were speaking to you in person.

This illustrates that the author's intended meaning is what matters with respect to documents. To insist on anything else is to insist upon what amounts to a "living Constitution" approach, one which says that what matters is the reader's interpretation, not the author's intended meaning.

This is why you must "get into their minds" when talking about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution for that matter. The author(s) had a meaning in mind when writing the Constitution and its amendments. That meaning is what matters. If we disagree with that meaning, then there is a ready-made means of taking care of the issue: Constitutional Amendments.

I completely agree with the rest of what you said. But in the end, we must pay heed to the original intended meaning. To do anything else is intellectually dishonest, and no better than what our opposition insists on doing.

 

[Stoveman]

Is this good? My brain is fried from trying to read the last several pages.

Agreed. There should be a lawyer and LIT (lawyer in training) and those who stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night sub forum...

 

[Blacksmith101]

Is this good? My brain is fried from trying to read the last several pages.

When they start debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin just skip those posts. Yes it sucks up bandwidth and has very little to do with the thread topic but they wont change so just skip the off topic posts and do your brain a favor.

 

[rockstarr]

Distributed for the November 9th conference.

I was wondering when we would get a yes or no answer as to whether they would grant cert or not.

 

[Kharn]

I was wondering when we would get a yes or no answer as to whether they would grant cert or not.

The Monday following the cert conference, the orders list is released prior to that day's arguments before the court. If Kolbe is denied or granted, it will be in the list, if it is held for another week, it will not be on the list, so a simple search in the PDF for Kolbe will tell you the outcome.

 

[jcutonilli]

I was wondering when we would get a yes or no answer as to whether they would grant cert or not.

It depends. They have been known to announce grants the same day, but that is very rare. Normally they announce grants and denials the first Monday after the conference. It is unlikely to be granted at the first conference. They have been relisting cases for another conference before granting cert. Several 2A cases have been relisted for another conference multiple times, but ultimately have been denied cert.

Conferences are generally on a Friday, but do get moved due to holidays and other reasons. They also skip at least one week a month. The next conference after the 9th is on the 21th with the result not posted until the 27th. The best bet is to check the schedule on the supreme court website or scotusblog.

 

[jcutonilli]

Agreed. There should be a lawyer and LIT (lawyer in training) and those who stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night sub forum...

When they start debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin just skip those posts. Yes it sucks up bandwidth and has very little to do with the thread topic but they wont change so just skip the off topic posts and do your brain a favor.

There was no debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. That issue is off topic.

This forum is about Maryland 2A issues. Specifically this thread is about the Kolbe en banc decision. Maybe you are not aware of the decision. The 4CA determined that Maryland law does not infringe on the 2A because the firearms in question do not fall within the scope of the 2A. A discussion of the scope of the 2A seems relevant given that is the reason behind the decision.

 

[MULE-JK]

Agreed. There should be a lawyer and LIT (lawyer in training) and those who stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night sub forum...

This is kinda funny. I have no desire to be a Constitutional Lawyer. They are the a**holes that have screwed it up with their stupid arguements leading to incorrect interpretations of incorrect interpretations resulting in case law that corrupts the document as it was written. I'm just a layman reading simple old world english and understanding what it says. I don't need a lawyer to tell me I'm wrong because someone made an incorrect decision in a court case, making it law.

But yeah go ahead and use up some bandwidth to make an off topic comment that attepmts to be witty and condescending, yet falls short.

 

[GTOGUNNER]

This is kinda funny. I have no desire to be a Constitutional Lawyer. They are the a**holes that have screwed it up with their stupid arguements leading to incorrect interpretations of incorrect interpretations resulting in case law that corrupts the document as it was written. I'm just a layman reading simple old world english and understanding what it says. I don't need a lawyer to tell me I'm wrong because someone made an incorrect decision in a court case, making it law.

But yeah go ahead and use up some bandwidth to make an off topic comment that attepmts to be witty and condescending, yet falls short.

I totally agree. I have said many times. Lawyers and Judges have screwed this country up.

Sent from the 3rd Rock

 

[fabsroman]

Is this good? My brain is fried from trying to read the last several pages.

I skipped those couple of pages. Seemed too much like work.

 

[fabsroman]

I totally agree. I have said many times. Lawyers and Judges have screwed this country up.

Sent from the 3rd Rock

Most attorneys require payment for them to argue a certain point on behalf of a client. The client has to pay for that to be done. So, somebody, other than an attorney, has to come seeking some type of opinion from the courts. Nah, it is society in general that has screwed it up for society as a whole. The attorneys are merely the "tools" used to achieve the goal. Kind of like the gun doesn't kill people, people kill people. The attorneys and politicians are not killing our society, but we ourselves are. We elect the politicians and in some cases the judges, and where we do not elect the judges they are appointed by the people we elect (see Trump election and Gorsuch). Just more convenient to blame the attorneys/gun, than the people actually responsible for the mess us/criminals.

There are just not many people in society that are like most of the people on this board. Society is the problem.

 

[MULE-JK]

Most attorneys require payment for them to argue a certain point on behalf of a client. The client has to pay for that to be done. So, somebody, other than an attorney, has to come seeking some type of opinion from the courts. Nah, it is society in general that has screwed it up for society as a whole. The attorneys are merely the "tools" used to achieve the goal. Kind of like the gun doesn't kill people, people kill people. The attorneys and politicians are not killing our society, but we ourselves are. We elect the politicians and in some cases the judges, and where we do not elect the judges they are appointed by the people we elect (see Trump election and Gorsuch). Just more convenient to blame the attorneys/gun, than the people actually responsible for the mess us/criminals.

There are just not many people in society that are like most of the people on this board. Society is the problem.

WOW!!!! You would think that with all those words you had put a great deal of thought into what you typed, but you just compared and inanimate object to a person. People have morals, a conscience, free will and all that other stuff that makes us human and I suppose if firearms did also I wouldn’t want them to have the qualities of lawyers that take cases to tear down the constitution. You know the lawyers that CHOOSE to take those cases. The kind that usually have agendas and the desire to further their careers by searching out those particular types of cases. The ones that want to ascend to positions of power and possibly become a judge, cuz I’m pretty sure most judges start out as lawyers. I will agree with you on one thing. Lawyers that choose to rip and tear at the constitution are tools.

As for the somebody's paying for it blah blah blah. The name Soros comes to mind. Money doesn't get elected, but it wields great power in polictics, "journalism" and the courts.

I gotta thank you for the chuckle I got when I imagined a particular lawyer I know reciting “I’m a tool” and a classroom full of students on their first day of law school repeating in unison at the Professors instruction the same mantra “I’m a tool”.

Please don’t misconstrue this as an attempt to bash all Lawyers. I know there are many good lawyers fighting the good fight for good people.


Hopefully this thread will get back on topic. It certainly seems to have taken a wrong turn.

 

[fabsroman]

WOW!!!! You would think that with all those words you had put a great deal of thought into what you typed, but you just compared and inanimate object to a person. People have morals, a conscience, free will and all that other stuff that makes us human and I suppose if firearms did also I wouldn’t want them to have the qualities of lawyers that take cases to tear down the constitution. You know the lawyers that CHOOSE to take those cases. The kind that usually have agendas and the desire to further their careers by searching out those particular types of cases. The ones that want to ascend to positions of power and possibly become a judge, cuz I’m pretty sure most judges start out as lawyers. I will agree with you on one thing. Lawyers that choose to rip and tear at the constitution are tools.

As for the somebody's paying for it blah blah blah. The name Soros comes to mind. Money doesn't get elected, but it wields great power in polictics, "journalism" and the courts.

I gotta thank you for the chuckle I got when I imagined a particular lawyer I know reciting “I’m a tool” and a classroom full of students on their first day of law school repeating in unison at the Professors instruction the same mantra “I’m a tool”.

Please don’t misconstrue this as an attempt to bash all Lawyers. I know there are many good lawyers fighting the good fight for good people.


Hopefully this thread will get back on topic. It certainly seems to have taken a wrong turn.

Society as a whole gets to decide what is and is not relevant and allowed. I get a good chuckle when people think that the 2nd Amendment, or any other Amendment for that matter, gives them an unalienable right or God given right. That makes me chuckle. The only thing that has given them that right is society in general, and society in general can decide to change those rights at any time. Yes, there will almost always be attorneys on both sides of a case, and ultimately it is up to the judges/politicians that we elect to do the bidding of the masses. Way easier to blame the attorneys than to look into the mirror and see that we ourselves are the problem, and our ancestors that came before us too. We all know Hitler was right in blaming Germany's woes on the Jews. Here and now, it is the attorneys fault for the problems we are having with the 2nd Amendment and the erosion of the Constitution. Don't worry, I get as much of a chuckle out of you trying to blame attorneys for where our society is today, as you do with me comparing a gun to an attorney.

Personally, I believe our woes started a couple generations ago when people stopped raising their kids the right way and now with people just not raising their kids at all. Plenty of blame to be tossed around, but just easier to single out attorneys and not everybody so you don't have to take any of the blame. I mean, you yourself could not be to blame whatsoever for what we have going on in society, just the attorneys. Our problems really are all because of attorneys and the legal system.

 

[MULE-JK]

Society as a whole gets to decide what is and is not relevant and allowed. I get a good chuckle when people think that the 2nd Amendment, or any other Amendment for that matter, gives them an unalienable right or God given right. That makes me chuckle. The only thing that has given them that right is society in general, and society in general can decide to change those rights at any time. Yes, there will almost always be attorneys on both sides of a case, and ultimately it is up to the judges/politicians that we elect to do the bidding of the masses. Way easier to blame the attorneys than to look into the mirror and see that we ourselves are the problem, and our ancestors that came before us too. We all know Hitler was right in blaming Germany's woes on the Jews. Here and now, it is the attorneys fault for the problems we are having with the 2nd Amendment and the erosion of the Constitution. Don't worry, I get as much of a chuckle out of you trying to blame attorneys for where our society is today, as you do with me comparing a gun to an attorney.

Personally, I believe our woes started a couple generations ago when people stopped raising their kids the right way and now with people just not raising their kids at all. Plenty of blame to be tossed around, but just easier to single out attorneys and not everybody so you don't have to take any of the blame. I mean, you yourself could not be to blame whatsoever for what we have going on in society, just the attorneys. Our problems really are all because of attorneys and the legal system.

Please point me to where I blamed anything on attorneys?

I merely pointed out how bassackwards your statement was.

If you find it funny that other people decide how you live your life I'm happy that you are able to find humor in anything, cuz that's kinda sad.

No, society does not dictate when I can defend myself. I do. Nor does it decide whether or not I defend myself with a firearm. No one gives you an unalienable right, it is yours. Whether you decide to recognize it or not is up to you. Unalienable rights are not "given" in the Constitution they are recognized. No one can give you something that already belongs to you. Society may set the norms and make laws, but the individual decides whether they choose to obey that law. To use your example, Hitler forged a society that passed a lot of inhumane laws, doesn't make society or Hitler right.


You can vote for anyone you like and it's not going to change anything. We are beyond that. Corruption has taken over at all levels. Money and power are the motivators not we the people. The only thing that will change anything is a reset. The yougins coming up behind us don't seem to care and actually seem to embrace socialism, so hopefully I'll be worm food before the switch. In the mean time I live pretty comfortably, so I'll enjoy the time I have.

 

[CharlieFoxtrot]

You guys are re-arguing Hobbes, Locke and Bentham: do rights come from God, government or are they inherent in man’s nature? Let me know when you reach a consensus

And MULE-JK it sure looked like you blamed lawyers:

You know the lawyers that CHOOSE to take those cases. The kind that usually have agendas and the desire to further their careers by searching out those particular types of cases. The ones that want to ascend to positions of power and possibly become a judge, cuz I’m pretty sure most judges start out as lawyers. I will agree with you on one thing. Lawyers that choose to rip and tear at the constitution are tools

 

[MULE-JK]

You guys are re-arguing Hobbes, Locke and Bentham: do rights come from God, government or are they inherent in man’s nature? Let me know when you reach a consensus

And MULE-JK it sure looked like you blamed lawyers:

Please read the entire "conversation" and not take things out of context. Even still there is no blame in that statement. Accusing them of being douchebags maybe. I was making the point that lawyers have a choice and the motivation to make those choices may be less than respectable. His analogy comparing guns to lawyers is absurd. A firearm has no choice in who fires it. A lawyer has every choice in who he represents.

I'm not a blame guy. I'm a realist. I just say it as I see it. If I were to place blame it would be on money and power.