Best Source for DC vs. Heller Updates and links

[M1911]

I never thought I'd say this:

Thank God for George W. Bush

If Gore/Kerry had placed justices on this court, there's no doubt in my mind that we would've lost.

This is the lesson that conservatives and libertarians need to learn! McCain is certainly not to their liking. But he is a lot closer than Obama. The next president is going to nominate at least 2 justices to the Supreme Court. There will likely be more litigation around the 2nd amendment. If 2 justices are nominated by Obama, we may well lose the next decision.

 

[matt1956]

wait.... looking better

At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to
“carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete
Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford
English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford).
When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning
that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—
confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S.
125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of
“carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE
GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is,
as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate:
‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing
or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and
ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict
with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion)

 

[ztp]

wait.... looking better

The way I read it, Massachusetts just became a "shall issue" state. And while concealed carry might be regulated, open carry should be legal. But I'm sure it will be a while before the powers that be come around.

 

[EZEKIEL 25:17]

I would suggest that shooting your firearms into the air at this time should be avoided (or at least my attorney says so).

 

[edirtyfour]

wait.... looking better

Where did you get that?

 

[Admin]

Where did you get that?

If someone posts snip its, just do a search in the pdf for a string and you will find it. I think that's on page 13

 

[matt1956]

Where did you get that?

what? the quote... not sure what page... going cross eyed reading the dang thing... but about 1/4th of the way down the link posted

 

[pdm]

A good bit:

In 1825, William Rawle, a prominent lawyer who had
been a member of the Pennsylvania Assembly that ratified
the Bill of Rights, published an influential treatise, which
analyzed the Second Amendment as follows:
“The first [principle] is a declaration that a well
regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free
state; a proposition from which few will dissent. . . .
“The corollary, from the first position is, that the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.
“The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution
could by any rule of construction be conceived
to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such
a flagitious attempt could only be made under some
general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any
blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt
it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint
on both.” Rawle 121–122.20

Bonus props for using the word "flagitious".

The footnote (20)

20 Rawle, writing before our decision in Barron ex rel. Tiernan v.
Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 (1833), believed that the Second
Amendment could be applied against the States. Such a belief would of
course be nonsensical on petitioners’ view that it protected only a right
to possess and carry arms when conscripted by the State itself into
militia service.

 

[tuna]

The way I read it, Massachusetts just became a "shall issue" state. And while concealed carry might be regulated, open carry should be legal. But I'm sure it will be a while before the powers that be come around.

Open carry is legal in Mass - currently stupid and asking to lose your license, but legal.

We all know what you mean, but before we can convince sheep or LEOs that OC is legal, we need to remind ourselves of that first.

 

[matt1956]

Does this now make the insane fees we pay unconstitutional?

No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor." --Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, US Supreme Court, 1943.

The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. --Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 [1944]

or not... because they also say that "licensing" was ok in this....

my head hurts reading the damn thing... but I have a urge to go buy a new gun and lots of ammo!!!

 

[Admin]

Continue here.

http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=39173