Bill submitted to allow Maine gun owners to carry concealed without permit (Portland: insurance, home)

[Northern Maine Land Man]

The court understands.

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees*. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

-- Justice Alex Kozinski, US 9th Circuit Court, 2003

[Maineac]

Well, yes, to the extent the Court alludes to the Constitutional right to bear arms shall not be infringed by the Government. The Framers were just coming off of rule by Monarchy and wanted to assure American's right to bear arms against the Government, the "in general" right being secondary and not even mentioned. Hence the reference to "well organized militia." If Walmart tells you you can't bring guns into their store, you can't. It's private property. If the local Lodge tells you no firearms in the Lodge, no firearms in the Lodge. Since the first step of Constitutional analysis - State Action - isn't met, they can do anything they want. Try walking into Superior Court in Bangor or the U.S. District Court carrying. There's what would appear at face value to be a constitutional infringement by State Action, but it really makes at least a little sense, doesn't it? By the way, interestingly, NH has the "right to revolution" included in their State Constitution.

[Northern Maine Land Man]

In Maine it is no firearms in post offices, courts, schools and of all places, the State House. The peoples' liberty is gone in the State House.

[FireFromIce]

Occasionally someone shoots a criminal saving their own life or the lives of other in the process. It bothers the mainstream media to report such stories because they portray firearms and their owners in positive light. Much more common, I think, are situations where the presence of a firearm in the hands of good people deter a crime.

[kevin5098]

As long as your part of a "well regulated militia" which most people leave out of thier reading of the 2nd amendment, I have no problem with you having access to a firearm. It's the exact gun drooler crowd that packs heat to go to Walmart, Denny's, or a children's clothing store that worries me.[/quote]

"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."

A comma separates the prefatory clause from the operative clause. The operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." stands on its own. The prefatory clause merely states a purpose for protecting the right. The Bill of Rights applies to all individuals. If the intent was to guarantee the militia the right to bear arms the amendment would have been worded differntly such as:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of militia members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Instead it states the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The constitution does not grant us the right, rather it prohibits the government from infringing on the right that we already possess.

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by floydDbarber

... As long as your part of a "well regulated militia" which most people leave out of thier reading of the 2nd amendment, I have no problem with you having access to a firearm. It's the exact gun drooler crowd that packs heat to go to Walmart, Denny's, or a children's clothing store that worries me.

Because the government will always have a regulated militia the right of the individual to be armed must remain intact.

It is not that we are all members of the militia, it is because the militia stands that we must be armed.

As you said read it.

[floydDbarber]

Originally Posted by kevin5098

As long as your part of a "well regulated militia" which most people leave out of thier reading of the 2nd amendment, I have no problem with you having access to a firearm. It's the exact gun drooler crowd that packs heat to go to Walmart, Denny's, or a children's clothing store that worries me.

"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."

A comma separates the prefatory clause from the operative clause. The operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." stands on its own. The prefatory clause merely states a purpose for protecting the right. The Bill of Rights applies to all individuals. If the intent was to guarantee the militia the right to bear arms the amendment would have been worded differntly such as:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of militia members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Instead it states the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The constitution does not grant us the right, rather it prohibits the government from infringing on the right that we already possess.[/quote]
When you are appointed to SCOTUS I'll pay attention to your interpretation.

I'll say again, your "right" to a gun is only a scotus decision away from saying bye bye. Much like owning slaves, your "right" can easily be eliminated. By court or vote...and we are adding more voters to our side, than Fox News and the NRA can create. 25 years and guns will be have the stigma of a colostomy bag.

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by Northern Maine Land Man

The court understands.

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees*. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

-- Justice Alex Kozinski, US 9th Circuit Court, 2003

A judge who understands the US Constitution, wow

[znlwovuhrjw]

^ You're never going to convince Floyd or any of them of anything.

These people would do much better in Australia or Sweden.

[GregW]

I object to losing my constitutional rights every time I enter some place that is private, and for that matter, government property. If I am trusted with a gun outside on the side walk why not in a courthouse, a private store or on an airplane?