Thread: Second Amendment - "There is No Right to Carry Any Weapon in Any Manner" (per SCOTUS)

While visiting family for Christmas I was given the following article. It seems that there is a trend in the courts to limit the Second Amendment to being only a right to have a gun at home, not in public. When you think of it, it makes sense. Just because you are in the military doesn't mean you can take your personal issue weapons with you in public, so why should a mere militia have greater rights than the regular forces?

A telling part (bolded and blued below) is where a conservative lawyer says that unless ordered to by the SCOTUS, he and his fellow judges are not willing to "be even minutely responsible for some un-speakably tragic act of mayhem because in the peace of our judicial chambers we miscalculated as to Second Amendment rights.” He and the other senior judges obviously recognize the gun problem that besets America, and will not personally be responsible for making the Second say what the extremists want it to say.

Revisiting the right to bear arms

Vancouver Sun, Tuesday, August 30, 2011

David G. Savage

WASHINGTON – The Second Amendment’s “right to keep and bear arms” is proving to be a right to keep a gun at home, but so far not a right to bear a loaded firearm in public.

The Supreme Court breathed a new life into the amendment when it struck down strict handgun bans in Washington and Chicago and spoke of the “inherent right of self defence.”

But to the dismay of gun rights advocates, judges in recent months have read those decisions narrowly and rejected claims from those who said they had a constitutional right to carry a loaded gun on their person or in their car. Instead, these judges from California to Maryland have said the “core right” to a gun is limited to the home.

Now, the National Rifle Association is asking the high court to take up the issue this fall and “correct the widespread misapprehension that the Second Amendment’s scope does not extend beyond the home.”

Stephen Halbrook, an NRA lawyer, said “some judges have buried their heads in the sand and have refused to go one step further” than saying there is a right to have a gun at home.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence hailed the trend and called the high court’s rulings a “hollow victory” for gun enthusiasts. “The gun lobby has tried to expand (the Second Amendment) into a broad right to carry any type of gun anywhere. And they have been almost unanimously rejected by the courts,” said Jonathan Lowy, director of legal action. He conceded, however, that “this battle is far from over.”

The uncertainty began with the Supreme Court itself. In 2008, Justice Antonin Scalia said the history of the Second Amendment shows it “guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” But other parts of his 5-4 opinion stressed there is no right to “carry any weapon in any manner,” and that bans on “carrying concealed weapons were lawful” in the 19th century [sic].

Since then, hundreds of lawsuits have been filed to challenge gun restrictions. In California, federal judges in San Diego and Yolo counties rejected suits from law-abiding gun owners who were denied “concealed carry” permits.

The Second Amendment does not create a fundamental right to carry a concealed weapon in public,” US District Judge Morrison England ruled in May.

“That’s the cutting-edge issue: whether the Second Amendment applies outside the home,” said Chuck Michel, an NRA lawyer in Long Beach, Calif., who has appealed the question to the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

State judges in Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts and New York have also ruled recently that there is no constitutional right to carry a loaded gun for self-defence. And in Virginia, the US 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the federal conviction of a man who fell asleep in his car near Washington’s Reagan National Airport with a loaded gun.

Despite setbacks in court, gun owners are winning on the political front. Now, 40 states grant concealed-carry permits to qualified gun owners. California, Maryland and Illinois are among the handful of states with large urban populations that deny most or all permits, except to those who show they face a specific danger.

Judges have been wary of second-guessing these restrictions. If the right to bear arms is to apply “outside the home environment, we think it is prudent to await direction from the Supreme Court itself,” US Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, a prominent conservative on the 4th Circuit bench wrote in March.

“This is serious business. We do not wish to be even minutely responsible for some un-speakably tragic act of mayhem because in the peace of our judicial chambers we miscalculated as to Second Amendment rights.”

The Supreme Court has two appeal petitions before it. In one, Charles Williams, a Maryland Resident, is appealing his one-year jail term for carrying a legally registered gun in a backpack. The other involves Sean Masciandro, the Virginia man who was convicted and fined for “carrying a loaded weapon in a motor vehicle” on national parkland.

Obama administration lawyers are expected to urge the court to steer clear of the issue. However, if the justices vote to hear it, the administration would have to argue that the right to bear arms does not extend to concealed weapons.

A writer here has written "Why are there gun grabbers?" The answer is obvious - there is unreasonable extremism on the left as well as on the right. Some extremists want a hidden armed public, other extremists want to seize others' personal property without cause. As is the case with most controversies the answer is somewhere in the middle. IMO, anyway.

Originally Posted by aboutenough

there is liberal judges still trying to mess around with the 2nd Amendment. Its true we can't walk around in public with a weapon (unless we have a concealed weapons permit). You can keep a gun in your car as long as its unloaded and in your trunk or out of site. A bill has passed in Congress that would allow Concealed permit owners to use their permit in all states to conceal their gun on their person. Its currently being held up in the Senate.

Possession is 9/10 of the law, and in this case it's 9/10 of the power too. It's completely idiotic to think you can "permit" gun sales and "forbid" their use, carrying, loading, and even abuse.

This is a known consequence of the Second Amendment. It was known at the time it was written. There were criminals then too. And con artists. And low life good-fer-nothin' bums.

The model in play though, was slightly different. The citizen-militia thing was working out pretty well, and they were worried that the right to bear arms could be stripped from someone based on their political views. And they were right!

It's even worse than that - at this very moment, our idiot fucking government thinks it's a psychiatrist, and they label marijuana use as a "mental illness" ('cause it's Schedule 1 dontcha know), which means you lose your Second Amendment rights if you smoke pot.

Hello? Our idiot fucking government can kiss my rosy red ass! They're getting a gun toting citizen whether they want one or not. That'll be the coldest day in hell ever, when I accept a medical diagnosis from a politician. Goddam fucking weasels.

And they wonder why people all over the world hate their guts. And they wonder why their own citizens hate their guts, have no respect for their laws, and generally think about 9% of 'em are worth a damn.

It's because of stuff like this, and because they're completely incapable of regulating the damn banks and here they are tryin' to be an ever-lovin' psychiatrist too.

I tell ya man, the stench comin' out of this mess is getting worse by the minute. These idiot politicians are trying to turn their constituents into terrorists instead of asking for our help. Fucking morons.

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

It's completely idiotic to think you can "permit" gun sales and "forbid" their use, carrying, loading, and even abuse.

Not at all, IMO. England and Canada seem to do just fine. You just have to set reasonable goals. Perfection isn't a reasonable goal. Forbidding civilians from concealed public carry of handguns would be a great start.

Our idiot fucking government can kiss my rosy red ass! They're getting a gun toting citizen whether they want one or not.

I think you're missing a point. Some of America's politicians want a single-party government. Forcing them to more extremism such as jailing you is just what they want.

These idiot politicians are trying to turn their constituents into terrorists instead of asking for our help.

How could you help? Serious Q.

Originally Posted by tubig

Not at all, IMO. England and Canada seem to do just fine. You just have to set reasonable goals. Perfection isn't a reasonable goal. Forbidding civilians from concealed public carry of handguns would be a great start.

Absolutely not, it would be a terrible goal. Since when is a handgun only useful in the home? Back when the 2nd was passed they had citizen militias, and if anything ever happens and our government becomes unstable they're going to have 'em again. You would mitigate the rights of citizens to protect each other?

I think you're missing a point. Some of America's politicians want a single-party government. Forcing them to more extremism such as jailing you is just what they want.

Pfft. They'd have to have evidence first. Something more than just me talking on an internet forum.

How could you help? Serious Q.

I dunno. Take up arms?

(j/k)

I'm doing what I can.

You?

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

Absolutely not, it would be a terrible goal. Since when is a handgun only useful in the home? Back when the 2nd was passed they had citizen militias, and if anything ever happens and our government becomes unstable they're going to have 'em again. You would mitigate the rights of citizens to protect each other?

No, my response says nothing to the issue of citizens protecting each other. Militias are armed forces. An army packing nothing but hidden handguns is not a credible armed force, although it would be handy for guerrillas. When things get to the point that every American in his home country is a concealed weapon packing guerrilla, there will probably have been a break down in law and order of such severity that normal rules are suspended. I am talking about normal times and normal people, not some futuristic time out of science fiction.

Originally Posted by tubig

No, my response says nothing to the issue of citizens protecting each other. Militias are armed forces. An army packing nothing but hidden handguns is not a credible armed force, although it would be handy for guerrillas. When things get to the point that every American in his home country is a concealed weapon packing guerrilla, there will probably have been a break down in law and order of such severity that normal rules are suspended. I am talking about normal times and normal people, not some futuristic time out of science fiction.

I dunno, let's see... not quite sure where to begin here. They had a bank robbery out here in North Hollywood a few years back, and the banditos were packing so many weapons that they severely outgunned about 30 LAPD cars and the SWAT team, and what happened is the cops ran over to the local gun store about two blocks away, and bought the place out, they just emptied tons of shotgun rounds into the banks, and I mean, it was a big deal 'cause one of the robbers end up wounded not dead and the relatives sued the city and the cops got all kinds of bad press over it, ....

And, home invasion robberies occur on a regular basis out here, they just lie in wait as you're goin' to work or comin' back or something... this is not a nice town. Neither is yours, probably.

I just think it's pointless to restrict a weapon to the house. There's a reality here. For 300 bucks you can go down to the corner and buy a clean unregistered untraceable handgun, there's wanna-be gang types walking around with those all over Van Nuys. They don't rip people off, mainly they're after each other mostly. Yeah it sucks, but if you ban the guns they'll just find another way. The other day someone got doused with gasoline and lit on fire. Is that any better? Probably not.

About the "normal times and normal people" logic, I'm not sure the Constitution was meant for normal times and normal people. It certainly wasn't written during normal times, was it? I think those protections are there for a reason. They're especially important in abnormal times. The President granted himself emergency powers, right? Which is entirely un-Constitutional, but our Supreme Idiots aren't going to touch that one 'cause it's a political hot potato, they don't like hearing cases that restrict the government's powers.

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

I dunno, let's see... not quite sure where to begin here. They had a bank robbery out here in North Hollywood a few years back, and the banditos were packing so many weapons that they severely outgunned about 30 LAPD cars and the SWAT team, and what happened is the cops ran over to the local gun store about two blocks away, and bought the place out, they just emptied tons of shotgun rounds into the banks, and I mean, it was a big deal 'cause one of the robbers end up wounded not dead and the relatives sued the city and the cops got all kinds of bad press over it, ....

And, home invasion robberies occur on a regular basis out here, they just lie in wait as you're goin' to work or comin' back or something... this is not a nice town. Neither is yours, probably.

I just think it's pointless to restrict a weapon to the house. There's a reality here. For 300 bucks you can go down to the corner and buy a clean unregistered untraceable handgun, there's wanna-be gang types walking around with those all over Van Nuys. They don't rip people off, mainly they're after each other mostly. Yeah it sucks, but if you ban the guns they'll just find another way. The other day someone got doused with gasoline and lit on fire. Is that any better? Probably not.

About the "normal times and normal people" logic, I'm not sure the Constitution was meant for normal times and normal people. It certainly wasn't written during normal times, was it? I think those protections are there for a reason. They're especially important in abnormal times. The President granted himself emergency powers, right? Which is entirely un-Constitutional, but our Supreme Idiots aren't going to touch that one 'cause it's a political hot potato, they don't like hearing cases that restrict the government's powers.

I cannot imagine a better argument for gun control. Somewhere between the lowly single-shot .22 and the semi-auto hunting rifle, including shotguns, the legal needs of every reasonable person can be satisfied. Unreasonable people have no right to be accommodated.

As for the argument that the bad guys can buy more powerful guns on the black market, so what? Must the laws change because bad guys break them? You can buy more powerful drugs on the black market than you can at drugstores but I've heard nobody here argue for legalizing street drugs for that reason?

Nobody is arguing gun confiscation, other than of illegal weapons. America already has gun control. The argument is about how much gun control is necessary. When per capita gun deaths in the US are down to the average level of other western democracies, that will be enough US gun control. Some people argue that it cannot be done. I disagree. The same used to be said about drunk driving back when it was the manly thing to do. There will always be those who break the law.

Calling all r/w guy nutz. There is no right to carry - as per the OP.