Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Someone with clean record, but with no enhanced need for protection (think jewelers, etc.), should apply for a full carry permit in NYC. Of course they'll be denied. This should then be challenged under the 2nd Amendment, since it's really hard to logically interpret "bear" to mean anything other than carry.
it has been challenged over and over and over . as long as there is a permit system in place , the requirements and privileges granted can be modified by the local issuing authority's .
end of story . there is nothing to challenge anymore .
the right to bear arms does not mean carry in their interpretation . whether you can carry has been left to local jurisdictions to decide and mold to what is best for the area involved . .
In a pair of decisions in 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court struck down ordinances in Washington and Chicago because they prohibited all private possession of handguns, including keeping a gun at home for self-defense. The justices did not address whether this right to self-defense includes a right to be armed in public. they let stand a high court ruling by a federal appeals court that held states have broad authority to regulate guns in public. .
Last edited by mathjak107; 10-15-2015 at 03:29 AM..
My choice would be a repeal of amendment 2 but clearly that will NEVER happen.
But as it stands, many localities are in clear violation of it, regardless of the myriad mistakes the judiciary makes (up to and including SCOTUS.)
But the most recent courts seem to have had little regard for what the Constitution actually SAYS.
In what dictionary are the words "bear" and "carry" not synonyms? Can anyone think that men of great intelligence like Jefferson and Madison could not say "keep in one's home" if that is what they meant? Or indeed use the word "musket" if they intended to allow the banning of all future "arms."
From their writings, it was clear they didn't have much worry about one's neighbor attacking them in their house but rather their worry was about a tyrant and his police force or army maintaining power illegally.
Last edited by Kefir King; 10-15-2015 at 08:49 AM..
The same was said about the Second Amendment in general, until Heller and McDonald.
A VERY strong case can be made that NYC permitting structure amounts to a constructive denial of the Second Amendment right of individuals (which is what Heller and Mcdonald directly acknowledged.) However, the right case (or split in decisions between different circuits) hasn't come up to force this issue to go to the Supremes. When it does, I think you'll see a lot of the restrictions currently in place go down in flames.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
it has been challenged over and over and over . as long as there is a permit system in place , the requirements and privileges granted can be modified by the local issuing authority's .
end of story . there is nothing to challenge anymore .
the right to bear arms does not mean carry in their interpretation . whether you can carry has been left to local jurisdictions to decide and mold to what is best for the area involved . .
In a pair of decisions in 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court struck down ordinances in Washington and Chicago because they prohibited all private possession of handguns, including keeping a gun at home for self-defense. The justices did not address whether this right to self-defense includes a right to be armed in public. they let stand a high court ruling by a federal appeals court that held states have broad authority to regulate guns in public. .
It's the Police unions that wants the gun laws so they get to keep their jobs. Which is why shop owners here hate it, they have to rely on the NYPD for protection.
The police unions have nothing to do with the gun laws in NY. You obviously know nothing about the history of NY's gun laws, starting with the Sullivan Law around 100 years ago created specifically to stop Italian immigrants from being able to carry firearms, by a politician who carried one every single day (or course).
The same was said about the Second Amendment in general, until Heller and McDonald.
A VERY strong case can be made that NYC permitting structure amounts to a constructive denial of the Second Amendment right of individuals (which is what Heller and Mcdonald directly acknowledged.) However, the right case (or split in decisions between different circuits) hasn't come up to force this issue to go to the Supremes. When it does, I think you'll see a lot of the restrictions currently in place go down in flames.
Another fact that mathjak keeps forgetting is that those cases addressed the fees involved in permitting, and that they must be reasonable. NYC's fee schedule for permitting is absolutely intended to dissuade citizens from apply and maintaining a permit. I believe the handgun license runs over $500 to obtain and something like $375 to renew every 3 years.
Thankfully none of this applies to me, yet, and I fully intend to move out of NY as soon as I retire so that I do not have to ever submit to these infringements (judges and dubious justifications aside, that's exactly what they are). Whether I have to follow them or not, I will always fight for those who do have to abide by these unconstitutional infringements.
The 2nd Circuit is a liberal haven and can say whatever it wants regarding gun laws as long as people like mathjak continue to accept it (sorry man, but it is true). Other circuits take completely opposite stances. Just because a law stands, we do not have to accept it as moral or constitutional when it clearly is not. Eventually the SCOTUS will be FORCED to rule for true gun rights because the intent of the 2nd is VERY clear to all but a few states and the politicians who RULE those states as tyrannical monarchies. NY is damn near even a hereditary monarchy by any definition considering the number of well placed families we somehow keep electing generation after generation.
The same was said about the Second Amendment in general, until Heller and McDonald.
A VERY strong case can be made that NYC permitting structure amounts to a constructive denial of the Second Amendment right of individuals (which is what Heller and Mcdonald directly acknowledged.) However, the right case (or split in decisions between different circuits) hasn't come up to force this issue to go to the Supremes. When it does, I think you'll see a lot of the restrictions currently in place go down in flames.
1) there's a difference between the right to use arms versus the right to carry arms. Not the same. You can own a car, but that doesn't necessarily mean you are in your rights using it.
2) its not unlikely given the sentiment in the country nowadays that the next time there is a 2nd Amendment case granted certiorari that the phrase well regulated militia will be considered and not entirely disregarded. In other words a VERY strong case can be made that the second amendment is twenty seven words not four words, and, as in most Constitutional textual analysis all the words are given meaning.
Except simple english tells us that the phrase "a well regulated militia" was included as an explanation rather than as a qualifier.
If you subsituted "education" and "books" respectively, no one would take that to mean that only those involved in education have the right to own and read books, but for some reason when certain types of people see the word "arms", they forget how to understand the language.
1) there's a difference between the right to use arms versus the right to carry arms. Not the same. You can own a car, but that doesn't necessarily mean you are in your rights using it.
Furthermore, the amendment literally says "to keep and bear", thereby covering both eventualities you mention above. So yes, both were recognized as inherent rights earned at birth, rather than being granted by the government as modern man seems to believe.
Another fact that mathjak keeps forgetting is that those cases addressed the fees involved in permitting, and that they must be reasonable. NYC's fee schedule for permitting is absolutely intended to dissuade citizens from apply and maintaining a permit. I believe the handgun license runs over $500 to obtain and something like $375 to renew every 3 years.
Thankfully none of this applies to me, yet, and I fully intend to move out of NY as soon as I retire so that I do not have to ever submit to these infringements (judges and dubious justifications aside, that's exactly what they are). Whether I have to follow them or not, I will always fight for those who do have to abide by these unconstitutional infringements.
The 2nd Circuit is a liberal haven and can say whatever it wants regarding gun laws as long as people like mathjak continue to accept it (sorry man, but it is true). Other circuits take completely opposite stances. Just because a law stands, we do not have to accept it as moral or constitutional when it clearly is not. Eventually the SCOTUS will be FORCED to rule for true gun rights because the intent of the 2nd is VERY clear to all but a few states and the politicians who RULE those states as tyrannical monarchies. NY is damn near even a hereditary monarchy by any definition considering the number of well placed families we somehow keep electing generation after generation.
I applaud your constitutionalism but I must ask if it applies with equal force to all the other amendments to the bill of rights?
Does government snooping fall afoul of the Fourth Amendment right to privacy?
Does waterboarding a confession out of someone violate the Fifth amendment prohibition against forced self incrimination, aka torture?
How about "Under God" in the pledge and "in God We Trust" on our money. Do they violate the First amendment's prohibition of "Establishing a religion?"
Is public money for Catholic schools the same violation?
Is declaring "money equals speech" and is thus protected under the First Amendment constitutional even if SCOTUS says so?
How about a bail too high for a person to pay? Does that violate the Eighth Amendment prohibiting "excessive bail?"
And in general, does the president have the right to order the assassination of anyone he pleases?
Does Amendment 10 allow for federal crimes punishable in a federal prison system.
And of course, Amendment 9 might as well not have ever existed: it is so completely ignored.
And I could go on and on.
Last edited by Kefir King; 10-15-2015 at 09:09 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
