Ok, a little tin-foil hat in the presentation, but has some valid points. Local government representatives making up rules without following the correct process is extremely frowned upon.
With no basis for such a decision (even if were just a local law passed that would probably eventually be found illegal), the point of asking where the line is drawn gets murky. You don't like guns, so you think this is reasonable. If I didn't like writers and was in charge enough to declare that blogging wasn't to be allowed, how is that different?
By the way, the first step in being able to change others' minds is to have an open mind yourself.
I found this post regarding the matter: http://www.infowars.com/batf-notice-bans-private-gun-sales-in-texas/
It points out that the people who ran the gun show asked that people comply with selling any firearm through an FFL with the justification that LEO asked them to do it.
As the post points out, the person running the gun show imposed this as a request, which they have the right to do.
That leads me to question whether the people running the gun show were imposing this restriction on their own and using LEO as an excuse.
The gun rights crowd often neglects that their "right" infringes upon the rights of others (e.g. property owners).
"The gun rights crowd often neglects that their "right" infringes upon the rights of others (e.g. property owners).
Whose right is more important?"
Ehh, I'd say it runs closer to 50/50 in the gun owning community.
It's an argument that comes up all the time, about whether the property owner should have absolute control over their property, despite being open for business to the public, (and therefore beholden to certain standards) vs. whether the property owner is discriminating by saying that this guy can come in but that guy can't, and the only differnce is that one is armed (a constitutionally protected right).
It ain't gonna get solved today, no matter how much we discuss it.
How do you figure that when Heller says: Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Heller at 54-5
From McDonald:
It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. McDonald at 39-40
Got that? recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
They said it twice
Verbum sapienti sat est!
Likewise, this individual has no right to complain if he wishes to read in a right to self-defence where it is not explicitly mentioned in the legal text.
Ok, a little tin-foil hat in the presentation, but has some valid points. Local government representatives making up rules without following the correct process is extremely frowned upon.
ReplyDeleteWith no basis for such a decision (even if were just a local law passed that would probably eventually be found illegal), the point of asking where the line is drawn gets murky. You don't like guns, so you think this is reasonable. If I didn't like writers and was in charge enough to declare that blogging wasn't to be allowed, how is that different?
By the way, the first step in being able to change others' minds is to have an open mind yourself.
Interesting.
ReplyDeleteI found this post regarding the matter:
http://www.infowars.com/batf-notice-bans-private-gun-sales-in-texas/
It points out that the people who ran the gun show asked that people comply with selling any firearm through an FFL with the justification that LEO asked them to do it.
As the post points out, the person running the gun show imposed this as a request, which they have the right to do.
That leads me to question whether the people running the gun show were imposing this restriction on their own and using LEO as an excuse.
The gun rights crowd often neglects that their "right" infringes upon the rights of others (e.g. property owners).
Whose right is more important?
Laci
"The gun rights crowd often neglects that their "right" infringes upon the rights of others (e.g. property owners).
ReplyDeleteWhose right is more important?"
Ehh, I'd say it runs closer to 50/50 in the gun owning community.
It's an argument that comes up all the time, about whether the property owner should have absolute control over their property, despite being open for business to the public, (and therefore beholden to certain standards) vs. whether the property owner is discriminating by saying that this guy can come in but that guy can't, and the only differnce is that one is armed (a constitutionally protected right).
It ain't gonna get solved today, no matter how much we discuss it.
Carrying a gun anywhere is a right?
ReplyDeleteHow do you figure that when Heller says:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Heller at 54-5
From McDonald:
It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. McDonald at 39-40
Got that? recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
They said it twice
Verbum sapienti sat est!
Likewise, this individual has no right to complain if he wishes to read in a right to self-defence where it is not explicitly mentioned in the legal text.
"Carrying a gun anywhere is a right?"
ReplyDeleteDid I say that, yappy dog?
Strawman, much!?!
Thanks Laci. I'm sure those two quotes will come in handy even if Mr. Anonymous didn't need to hear them.
ReplyDeleteYes, they'll come in handy the next time he needs to argue against something that no one here said.
ReplyDelete