Jump to content
Aw yes, the old drink your self silly while packing heat. I am sure that all bars and nightclubs would be safer if everyone was armed. It worked out so well in Dodge City after all. Ask Dr. Victory how that drinking and concealed carry worked out for her..
They had armed staff.
"An officer working extra duty in full uniform at the club responds. He and two officers nearby open fire on the shooter, and a gun battle ensues."
The good guys with guns were simply out-gunned.
Ken, I tend to agree with you on this post. Except for this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Except that there are laws about the "FIRE in a crowded Theater", Local control of where even peaceful protests can take place, In addition, there are laws governing outright Liable or inflammatory public speech etc.. How can the provisions in Article 1 accept some regulation but not the provisions in Article 2?
In terms of Heller, I fully support the right to protect me and what is mine. However, it has already been determined that the individual gives up certain rights when that person puts themselves into a public space. Privacy being the one most prominent. Even current Colorado law puts the space in your vehicle as your personal space so having arms in the vehicle is not considered any different that having them in your home. I would contend that the same principle applies to however many acres of land the individual might own.
The point of contention specifically discussed in the Peruta v. San Diego decision is who should be walking around city streets, concerts, restaurants, bars and grocery stores with a concealed weapon. Is that considered a 2nd amendment right or can there be regulation in this area. The En Banc decision by the 9th circuit court says it can be regulated.
This decision is not about the possession or class of the weapon. Heller was specifically about the type of weapon being banned and the court limited their decision to that question. What needs to be answered is does anyone and everyone have a right to arm themselves in public (ie. concealed carry) or is there a need to regulate that.
I have no problem with anyone out there choosing to protect themselves in public spaces, but the issue remains that not everyone out there should be allowed to engage in the responsibility that comes with that choice. It remains a fact that there are individuals n our society that cannot be trusted to make the right choices with the power embodied in that weapon.
Even a commercial driver faces a higher level of training and testing than a normal driver, and in my opinion the individual being armed in public should require a higher level of knowledge and training. Heck, we even have hunter safety training before you can get a hunting license but you can get a concealed carry permit in some states just by filling out the paperwork with no training required.
If you would read the actual text that I posted instead of just throwing out all the reasons the decision was wrong, you would learn that the 9th Circuit Court referenced both the Heller and the McDonald decisions.
"But this lawsuit was critically flawed from the start, because the Supreme Court’s watershed Second Amendment decision, D.C. v. Heller, confined its holding to the possession of firearms “in the home.” The Heller court also declared:
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. 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. Admittedly, the court’s follow-up firearms case, McDonald v. Chicago, did contain some dicta about a broader “right to self-defense.” But in no way did it extend Heller’s logic to guarantee a right to self-defense outside of the home."
Allen, it would appear that 150 years of Court rulings disagree with your "opinion"
You keep missing the 1st part of the 2nd amendment so I will include the entire text.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Please notice the 3rd word specifically and tell us how regulation is not included.
Some history for you:
In the decades following the Civil War and the ratification of the 14th Amendment—which applied much of the Bill of Rights to the states—this consensus grew. A number of states explicitly granted legislatures the authority to outlaw concealed carry, which legislatures quickly did. Every state court that heard challenges to these bans ruled the same way, upholding the constitutionality of concealed carry prohibitions. In 1897, the Supreme Court of the United States even asserted that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.”
Until quite recently, in other words, there was a near-universal consensus among courts and legislatures that America’s Constitution, historical practices, and legal traditions do not create a right to carry concealed arms in public. That is enough, under Heller and McDonald, to reject the Peruta plaintiffs’ argument. Gun rights advocates may press legislatures to enact their policy preferences into law, but they cannot conjure a constitutional right to concealed carry this late in the game. And the 9th Circuit’s ruling in Peruta should give pause to activists who think they can use the courts to vindicate a right that never existed in the first place.
The last three court decisions about "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" All upheld the right to self-defense at home, but are drawing the line over concealed carry in public spaces.
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. 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.
Admittedly, the court’s follow-up firearms case, McDonald v. Chicago, did contain some dicta about a broader “right to self-defense.” But in no way did it extend Heller’s logic to guarantee a right to self-defense outside of the home."
Last login: Friday, June 10, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |