Gun control debate (merged)

#18,002
#18,002
EricStratton said:
That was never really part of RTKBA, so, no. The current State and Federal firearm bans and prohibitions. Let's start with the 1935 Act and work forward.
Click to expand...

Okay, you're more than welcome to point out any anti 2A measures being introduced or supported in Oklahoma.

I'll wait...
 
  • Like
Reactions: newokie03
#18,003
#18,003
Grand Vol said:
Okay, you're more than welcome to point out any anti 2A measures being introduced or supported in Oklahoma.

I'll wait...
Click to expand...

Well, as I said before, the Gun Control Act of 1935. You've heard of it, right? Or what about the GCA of 1968 which removed the ability for honest, God fearing people to afford quality firearms. Or what about FOPA, Or even Hughes? What about the import ban of 1989? Which one is Oklahoma vigorously fighting against? Oh, wait, another thing, ya'll got seat belt laws in Oklahoma? What about children's seats? Speed limits? It's all state level mandates from the Federal G-O-V-T.
 
#18,004
#18,004
EricStratton said:
Well, as I said before, the Gun Control Act of 1935. You've heard of it, right? Or what about the GCA of 1968 which removed the ability for honest, God fearing people to afford quality firearms. Or what about FOPA, Or even Hughes? What about the import ban of 1989? Which one is Oklahoma vigorously fighting against? Oh, wait, another thing, ya'll got seat belt laws in Oklahoma? What about children's seats? Speed limits? It's all state level mandates from the Federal G-O-V-T.
Click to expand...

Lol

If you really want to debate gun laws and restrictions, you might want to at least get the year right on the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Even the lawyers in here won't go head to head with me on this topic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and InVOLuntary
#18,005
#18,005
Grand Vol said:
Lol

If you really want to debate gun laws and restrictions, you might want to at least get the year right on the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Even the lawyers in here won't go head to head with me on this topic.
Click to expand...

I’ll go head to head with you. You think hand carry is covered under the 2nd Amendment. It isn’t.
 
#18,009
#18,009
hndog609 said:
There's a lot of people would include the "bear" part of "keep and bear arms" as addressing that issue.

If you're wanting more jurisprudence on the matter keep a heads up on this case.

Search - Supreme Court of the United States
Click to expand...
Which are you referring? Heller? McDonald? I think Heller covered the matter quite well. The goofiness with NYPRA vs. Corlett will be a stinging defeat to the RTKBA foamers. It's a shame, too.
 
#18,012
#18,012
EricStratton said:
Which are you referring? Heller? McDonald? I think Heller covered the matter quite well. The goofiness with NYPRA vs. Corlett will be a stinging defeat to the RTKBA foamers. It's a shame, too.
Click to expand...

Did you not click the link? Heller did not address bearing of arms outside the home as that was not part of the case*. McDonald incorporated the Heller decision.

The problem with someone simply stating the bearing of arms isn't under 2A protection is two fold.

1. It (the 2A) unambiguously states "keep AND bear"
2. Heller clearly holds that the "keep" part is a protected and individual right.

Now there seems a bit of an onus on the idea that "keep and bear" only actually means keep but not really so much bear. Not sure what the SCOTUS will make of this when that goes into the mill but there's no way around the fact it's going to take an interesting parsing to get that "and" to not really mean inclusive with the keep.

A bit of an aside but it's interesting that the most common reference for permitless carry is "Constitutional Carry", don't you think? We're coming up on nearly half the states using CC.

As stated in my first post now that we've got real SCOTUS review coming up on the matter getting too carried away with arguing the point at this level seems a bit silly so I'm not interested in a deep dive on the matter.

*When I say "not part of the case" I don't mean the bearing of arms wasn't mentioned in several contexts, merely that Heller did not make a point of disambiguating the issue, hence why these other cases have come forth.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#18,015
#18,015
1vol8 said:
🤔. I just talked on this subject yesterday. Far too perfect of a chain of events to be coincidental. Open the boarders to the cartels, arm known terrorist in Afghanistan, transplant Afghan refugees throughout the nation and disarm Americans. 🤔. Idk bout y’all but I’m on high alert.
Click to expand...
Welp xiden says the evacuation was a great success.... of course he also said he has three college degrees, graduated at the top of his class, was a coal miner and a semi truck driver, did not commit adultery with the wife of the guy who's covette he crashed, and beat the crap out of corn pop with a chain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1vol8
#18,016
#18,016
StarRaider said:
Welp xiden says the evacuation was a great success.... of course he also said he has three college degrees, graduated at the top of his class, was a coal miner and a semi truck driver, did not commit adultery with the wife of the guy who's covette he crashed, and beat the crap out of corn pop with a chain.
Click to expand...

Busy man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#18,020
#18,020
“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.”

Scalia would also assert the belief that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited” and that it is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
 
#18,022
#18,022
hog88 said:
Kinda hard to "bear arms" if you can't have them on your person.
Click to expand...

To "bear" arms has nothing to do with having them upon your person.

Grand Vol said:
Of which a court case in Georgia affirmed almost 200 years ago. But he probably doesn't know that.
Click to expand...

And it doesn't mean anything. Does not stand the sniff test, sorry.

hndog609 said:
Did you not click the link? Heller did not address bearing of arms outside the home as that was not part of the case*. McDonald incorporated the Heller decision.

The problem with someone simply stating the bearing of arms isn't under 2A protection is two fold.

1. It (the 2A) unambiguously states "keep AND bear"
2. Heller clearly holds that the "keep" part is a protected and individual right.

Now there seems a bit of an onus on the idea that "keep and bear" only actually means keep but not really so much bear. Not sure what the SCOTUS will make of this when that goes into the mill but there's no way around the fact it's going to take an interesting parsing to get that "and" to not really mean inclusive with the keep.

A bit of an aside but it's interesting that the most common reference for permitless carry is "Constitutional Carry", don't you think? We're coming up on nearly half the states using CC.

As stated in my first post now that we've got real SCOTUS review coming up on the matter getting too carried away with arguing the point at this level seems a bit silly so I'm not interested in a deep dive on the matter.

*When I say "not part of the case" I don't mean the bearing of arms wasn't mentioned in several contexts, merely that Heller did not make a point of disambiguating the issue, hence why these other cases have come forth.
Click to expand...

Heller put an end to the thought of affirmed rights to carry a firearm outside of your house, on a Federal level. Once again, State's rights, which is my damn point.
 
#18,023
#18,023
EricStratton said:
To "bear" arms has nothing to do with having them upon your person.



And it doesn't mean anything. Does not stand the sniff test, sorry.



Heller put an end to the thought of affirmed rights to carry a firearm outside of your house, on a Federal level. Once again, State's rights, which is my damn point.
Click to expand...

You seem quite sure of your stance here but an actual reading of Heller would challenge your assertion. This from Heller:

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 “surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicates: to 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."

More recently (but before these latest cases that will be addressed by SCOTUS) Thomas and Gorsuch had this observation:

This Court has already suggested that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public in some fashion. As we explained in Heller, to “bear arms” means to “ ‘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.’ ” 554 U. S., at 584 (quoting Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125, 143 (1998) The most natural reading of this definition encompasses public carry. I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. See Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 444 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting) (“To speak of ‘bearing’ arms solely within one’s home not only would conflate ‘bearing’ with ‘keeping,’ in derogation of the [Heller] Court’s holding that the verbs codified distinct rights, but also would be awkward usage given the meaning assigned the terms by the Supreme Court”); Moore v. Madigan, 702 F. 3d 933, 936 (CA7 2012) (similar).
The relevant history appears to support this understanding. The panel opinion below pointed to a wealth of cases and secondary sources from England, the founding era, the antebellum period, and Reconstruction, which together strongly suggest that the right to bear arms includes the right to bear arms in public in some manner.

And finally, if things were actually as clear cut on the matter as you insist, having SCOTUS grant certiorari to review this very issue would be superfluous.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and NorthDallas40
#18,025
#18,025
hndog609 said:
You seem quite sure of your stance here but an actual reading of Heller would challenge your assertion. This from Heller:

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 “surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicates: to 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."

More recently (but before these latest cases that will be addressed by SCOTUS) Thomas and Gorsuch had this observation:

This Court has already suggested that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public in some fashion. As we explained in Heller, to “bear arms” means to “ ‘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.’ ” 554 U. S., at 584 (quoting Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125, 143 (1998) The most natural reading of this definition encompasses public carry. I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. See Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 444 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting) (“To speak of ‘bearing’ arms solely within one’s home not only would conflate ‘bearing’ with ‘keeping,’ in derogation of the [Heller] Court’s holding that the verbs codified distinct rights, but also would be awkward usage given the meaning assigned the terms by the Supreme Court”); Moore v. Madigan, 702 F. 3d 933, 936 (CA7 2012) (similar).
The relevant history appears to support this understanding. The panel opinion below pointed to a wealth of cases and secondary sources from England, the founding era, the antebellum period, and Reconstruction, which together strongly suggest that the right to bear arms includes the right to bear arms in public in some manner.

And finally, if things were actually as clear cut on the matter as you insist, having SCOTUS grant certiorari to review this very issue would be superfluous.
Click to expand...

Wow. All that effort for something the second and tenth circuits have already decided.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top