Ninth Circuit holds Second Amendment secures a right to carry a gun

buster2010
The ninth circuit court misunderstands the second amendment. The supreme court ruled a person has a right to bear arms to defend their home but not the right to carry a gun. That right belongs only to a well regulated militia.

Amendment II

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.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government. In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.

If people want to exercise the right to carry arms they just need to form a militia.

There has been much written about this. Joining a militia does not relate to the right to keep and bear arms and there has never been a ruling suggesting such.

The right to bear arms is clear. The right to bear arms does not prevent Congress from establishing requisites to be able to limit access to criminals and mentally challenged individuals.

The whole argument is rather disingenuous for the simple reason that law-abiding citizens who register and are licensed are not the problem. The problem, generally, are those who are criminals, or mentally deficient having access. If you prevent the law-abiding citizen from owning a gun, then how are you preventing the law-breaker from having a gun? All you have done is disarmed the lawful citizen. Such gun control has worked oh, so very well in Chicago, no? Detroit?

buster2010
The ninth circuit court misunderstands the second amendment. The supreme court ruled a person has a right to bear arms to defend their home but not the right to carry a gun. That right belongs only to a well regulated militia.

Amendment II

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.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government. In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.

If people want to exercise the right to carry arms they just need to form a militia.

Oh, and I will take your 1876 ruling and match it with this one from 2008 (Supreme Court):

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision, expressly holding the amendment to protect an individual right to possess and carry firearms.

reply to post by buster2010

This also from the Heller case (2008):

A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If "bear arms" means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage ("for the purpose of self-defense" or "to make war against the King"). But if "bear arms" means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add "for the purpose of killing game." The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the mad hatter.

I find this rather humorous

But dont you think that the gun-lobby, gun owner's rights advocacy groups, the NRA etc., etc. need to do more than rely on the 2nd Amendment to protect their rights as they see them?

I think we live in a time when the common zeitgeist would support, or at least allow the Constitution to be opened and the 2nd Amendment addressed.

It is not enough to say "the 2nd Amendment" guarantees it and that is enough.

If you live in a country where you feel that one must carry a gun for their own safety, there's something wrong with that country.

I just don't get that

reply to post by drneville


Freedom includes the freedom to be a jerk at least once before being put into a jail or something. Personal responsibility comes with freedom. That is the other half to insure the one being a jerk doesn't get out of hand....and carrying a gun is a proven way of accomplishing jerk control in those rare times one might encounter in life.

drneville
If you live in a country where you feel that one must carry a gun for their own safety, there's something wrong with that country.

I just don't get that

Where have you been? "Those" countries make up much of the world.

reply to post by buster2010


It has provided to you numerous times before, in other threads.

You are about as wrong as solar panels at night.


Please, before you stick your foot in your mouth again, or just do a hit and run, why not actually go and was the law revolving sound with the Militia entailes.

TiedDestructor

drneville
If you live in a country where you feel that one must carry a gun for their own safety, there's something wrong with that country.

I just don't get that

Where have you been? "Those" countries make up much of the world.

That's what people of such counties think

Ever visited Europe ??

reply to post by bbracken677


Here's my take in regards to the 2nd Amendment, and I agree with DC v Heller. Wrabbit explained it very well.

The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

My description of what I read in the 2nd Amendment-

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" = A well regulated militia, which is required to ensure a free state (nation), - Prefatory clause

[Prefatory]

prefatory

of, pertaining to, or of the nature of a preface

prefatory

of, relating to, or constituting a preface

That's the "Prefatory" part.

So, the well regulated militia, which is required to maintain a free state, must.....

(",the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." = meaning the people must have the right to keep and bear arms.)

be allowed 'FROM' the peoples right to keep and bear arms. If the people cannot keep and bear arms, then they are unable to form a well regulated militia.

The "Operative" part:

Operative

a : producing an appropriate effect :

b : most significant or essential

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Therefore - ""A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" [of, relating to, pertaining to], ",the right of the people to keep and bear arms" [producing an appropriate effect /most significant or essential], shall not be infringed".

reply to post by bbracken677


I am all for carrying guns, and Chicago is a good example of gun control gone very bad,

but Detroit? Detroit has the right to bare arms, shall issue city, and the highest rate of self defense with guns in the country. Corruption and poverty #ed Detroit up, along with racism that has since been abated.

macman
reply to post by Aleister

 

I am surprised because they are the most notorious at creating law from the bench. They have cited crap like International laws, social justice, that they felt the law should be reflective of how they ruled and so on.

But, they did get something right.

After watching some decisions from the Ninth in the last twenty or so years I'll have to go along with lightly stunned. If DC v Heller tipped anti-2nd in the tiebreaker at SCOTUS there may not have been this occurring downstairs too. Just my tuppence.

But unfortunately case law is becoming more influential to the point of despotism being a relative norm... it's only good for the people that your due notice of "legislating from the bench" is just the wordy definition of what TPB would like for normalcy, that D word.
I still have that nagging worry, Mac that the media again takes a snapshot of the watch when the time is right-- very infrequently. I wonder what Pennsylvania Ave. will have to say about the nice unclamping.

Downside and real time, it probably won't change any local policies: notably since CA is experiencing recent confiscations by the orcs anyway. Lawless is as lawless is indulged.
I's personally love to hear some decisions appropriately trumpeted about ("treaties that are repugnant to the Constitution" being null and void) from this end: as pushed from the UN Gun Ban issue. Maybe too much coffee and common sense for 0600 LOL.

drneville
If you live in a country where you feel that one must carry a gun for their own safety, there's something wrong with that country.

I just don't get that

I dont feel the need and I do not carry. Your perception is incorrect if you believe a significant number of people here carry.

It's principle, it's about the right to carry if one does so choose.

If I may ask, what country do you live in?

reply to post by drneville


Oh.....The US should care about what other countries think, in regards to our 2nd Amendment?

Yeah, let me get right on that.

reply to post by bbracken677


Ohhh, I carry.
Why??? Because I was in LE and know that police are reactionary in nature to crime, and when I say reactionary, I mean in the of reacting about 15 minutes after the altercation has ended.

Plus, in the industry that my business is in, it is a necessity.

I do think, based on numbers, that there are a larger number of people that carry concealed on a daily basis then what you think.

reply to post by buster2010


HA!

Buster, do you just make this stuff up, thinking no one knows you are full of it?

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by buster2010

 

The US Supreme Court disagrees with you, Buster.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

The 9th is reading it precisely right, as this all came from the landmark case that set the precedent.

It directly addresses your examples, as a matter of fact. By specific citation.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

Source: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER (2008)

According to the Court, neither case contradicts the reading of the Amendment as individual right to own and bear arms. The overall Heller case determined it is absolutely an individual right and without any connection to a militia of any form. Until the Supreme Court takes up the case again, that's the law of the land now...and just in time, as it happened to be. I do say.

Please reread my post again because you only worded what I said in a different way. Also rereading your link wouldn't hurt.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Looks like the Supreme Court agrees with what I said.

drneville
If you live in a country where you feel that one must carry a gun for their own safety, there's something wrong with that country.

I just don't get that

Yup. Something wrong with America, where I live. I carry a gun typically to protect myself from some of the deadly wildlife in the area. Like mountain lion, bobcat, wild hog, coyotes, and rattlesnakes.

we should fix that up. Make it more like Europe, with all the larger and more dangerous animals driven to extinction. That's a swell idea.

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by buster2010

 

HA!

Buster, do you just make this stuff up, thinking no one knows you are full of it?

Maybe you can get someone to read the constitution to you at a level you can understand. Even the link wrabbit posted backed up what I said.

Just because you choose to remain ignorant doesn't mean everyone else does. But then again you are from Texas so critical thinking is obviously not involved on your part.

buster2010


Just because you choose to remain ignorant doesn't mean everyone else does. But then again you are from Texas so critical thinking is obviously not involved on your part.

You really are vying for the most ignorant comments daily on ATS, aren't you.

You really have no clue, in regards to firearms and the 2nd, do you.

All of these things have been addressed, and presented to you in numerous formats. You really are just about trolling in these threads.