Bans in which I already stated I disagreed with, but the decisions that overturned them have nothing to do with the common and accepted practice of handgun regulation by requiring a permit. The US Supreme Court, who interprets the US Constitution quite often, has made it clear that their decision in Heller was not to imply that other regulation was unconstitutional. An obvious fact you tend to leave out.
I don't leave anything out. I simply do not infer that since a Justice rules in favor of a plaintiffs focused pursuit in a given case, that a Justice is somehow, and for some reason, going to completely dismantle every other law not associated with the one specific question he or she is being asked.
I wonder why Thomas Jefferson would say the following:
"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks." - Thomas Jefferson to his teenage nephew
I assure you this comment was not meant to imply that he ask the government for permission, or conceal it.
Let's check a track record of who has more testimony in court regarding criminal statutes, including gun crimes. Hmmm..
Your track record would mean something were it not in Tennessee courts, and participatory in a system that has clearly been wrong on several fronts, for so many years.
Again, you claim that any law currently enacted, particularly permit requirements, is some sort of lawful interpretation based upon the 2nd Amendment.
Yet here, again, you cannot rationalize your decision to violate "...shall not be infringed", other than to point to the state of the current judicial system, and infer that it is your ally.
In other words, you have no personal basis whatsoever, on how you "interpret" the 2nd Amendment. Which happens to be, by the way, the most uncomplicated, and straight forward amendment in the entire BoR.
"...shall not be infringed."
Learn it, live it, love it.
Not prima facie, TRY stare decisis. What have courts consistently ruled across the US regarding the regulation of the carrying of arms?
No.
Prima Facie is absolutely correct. You have repeatedly asserted the existence of permit requirements as proof of their Constitutionality, and on that fact alone.
When I ask you to interpret the 2nd Amendment, you repeatedly infer that since
some Justices agree with you (Hrmm, gee I wonder if appointing unqualified justices via political correctness or party affiliation has something to do with this?), that it is "Constitutional".
Hate to break it to you, but the Constitution, in the end, does not need a SCOTUS ratification. It has
already been ratified, yet slowly eroded by our citizens complacency in allowing slow corruption of its principles under the guise of "safety".
Once the US Supreme Court, or any district or appellate court for that matter, overrule themselves regarding the issue, you let me know.
Oh, ok. Consider this your notice.
Heller overturned years of obviously spurious cases by (re)affirming the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, despite many prior cases inferring that the right is "collective".
McDonald turned over several prior cases in which homeowners, or other LAC were denied this rather basic right due to the Chicago handgun ban.
Maybe I don't understand it coming from your perspective. I know the laws I've enforced, the courts I've attended, and the decisions I've read and been a part of for the last nine years on a local, state, and federal level.
Have you not been listening to anything that has been said at all?
You are
part of a broken system.
Well enlighten me and tell me the specific quote where it says the Constitution wasn't meant to be open to interpretation? Are you making the assumption I'm the only one that has that opinion? Because there are tons across the US that carry the same viewpoint.
"[FONT=COMIC SANS MS,PALATINO,BOOKMAN OLD STYLE,HELVETICA,ARIAL,TIMES]The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves;
that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press. "[/FONT] - Thomas Jefferson
(
Please note nowhere does he imply a permit process, and in conjunction with the US Constitution, our right to keep and BEAR arms, shall not be infringed.)
"The Constitution on which our union rests, shall be administered by me according to the safe and honest
meaning contemplated by the
plain understanding of the people of the United States, at the time of its adoption,—a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated (it)...
These explanations are preserved in the publications of the time, and are too recent in the memories of most men to admit of question." Thomas Jefferson shortly after attaining the presidency, on the topic of the Constitution.
"Let me put it this way;
there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution --
try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up.
No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the latest football scores. To be sure, even the most conscientious effort to adhere to the original intent of the framers of our Constitution is flawed, as all methodologies and human institutions are; but at least originalism has the advantage of being legitimate and, I might add, impartial." -
Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas
"
[There's] the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that; the Constitution is not a living organism; it is a legal document.
It says something and doesn't say other things . . . [Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided] not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court . . . They are not looking for legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable." - Honorable Justice Antonin Scalia
“
Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.” - Abraham Lincoln
"“
Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”" - James Madison
"
On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823
There you go making ASSumptions again. I never said or implied all law is constitutional, only the legislation across the US that requires a permit to carry.
Fewer states require permits, than those who do. In fact,
far fewer.
Your "Across the US" comment is hyperbole, completely unsubstantiated by facts, and in denial of the truth.
The map has been posted for you several times, yet you adhere to this idea that the "Right to carry" is regulated by permit across the US.
You are flat out wrong.
Your comment about the purported constitutionality of said permit requirements holds no more weight, than the previous implications that the right was not an individual one, or that it was not incorporated.
Obviously the history of decisions regarding any amendment or a law questioning it is paramount in any judicial decision. Never said it wasn't. You take my opinion of the interpretation of the Second Amendment, which is on par with most courts across the country, and twist my posts to imply something that was never there.
You sit in Tennessee courts, and are clearly blind as bat to what is going on around you in other states.
Again, as I have stated to you numerous times, get out of your little hole.
There has been 0 twisting of your posts, and of both of us, I am the only one using the works of the framers to substantiate my commentary while you simply refer back to your buddies in the Tennessee court system as a model for Constitutionality.
Ah I see. I interpret the Second Amendment different from you, so it's disrespecting the Constitution. No wonder no one frequents this forum too often. God forbid someone doesn't agree with your side of things. Unbelievable.
You interpret so far from what any of the framers have ever said in thousands of quotes and comments about its construction. You then cling to "lack of tolerance" to add emotion to your commentary.
You are an emotive, subservient extrovert.
Facts are lost on you.
