• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

game over?

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
The Supreme court has been around since 1789. In 228 years they have only dealt with (5) cases, with regards to the 2nd amendment.

United States v Cruikshank (1875)
Presser v Illinois (1886)
United States v Miller (1939)
District of Columbia v Heller ( 2008)
McDonald v Chicago (2010)

The Supremes appear to always dodge 2nd amendment issues, they leave the decisions in the lap of the State courts.. Almost seventy years elapsed between Miller and Heller, one would need be a soothsayer of the highest order, to understand the lack of interest by the highest court in the land concerning the 2nd amendment.

In my humble opinion, a total disgrace on the part of the Supreme Court.

Regards
CCJ
 
Last edited:

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,424
Location
Florida
The Supreme court has been around since 1789. In 228 years they have only dealt with (5) cases, with regards to the 2nd amendment.

United States v Cruikshank (1875)
Presser v Illinois (1886)
United States v Miller (1939)
District of Columbia v Heller ( 2008)
McDonald v Chicago (2010)

The Supremes appear to always dodge 2nd amendment issues, they leave the decisions in the lap of the State courts.. Almost seventy years elapsed between Miller and Heller, one would need be a soothsayer of the highest order, to understand the lack of interest by the highest court in the land concerning the 2nd amendment.

In my humble opinion, a total disgrace on the part of the Supreme Court.

Regards
CCJ

or maybe cuz it's really so simple. i mean, the constitution is basically a contract between the states- idk why they get away with not following the 26 rules. same as idk why they let the fed get away with everything else.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Indeed, one would think, that one need not be a legal scholar to interpret the 27 small words contained in the 2nd amendment.

I guess, well-regulated and infringed... Is stomping them.. :banana:

CCJ
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
Dodged a bullet

This is not a 2A case, it is a privilege card case, and Scalia already made his remarks on CC permits. Kennedy would have ruled using Scalia's words in Heller to rule against the petitioner.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,424
Location
Florida
This is not a 2A case, it is a privilege card case, and Scalia already made his remarks on CC permits. Kennedy would have ruled using Scalia's words in Heller to rule against the petitioner.
where can i find his remarks?
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
A privilege card or license requirement or some bogus fee, is simply a TAX.. No privilege card or license or some bogus fee, should be required to exercise a natural right. They can call it what ever they like, if it looks like a tax, and takes money out of our pocket like a tax, than clearly it is nothing but a TAX..

Take a close look at Murdock v Pa (1943). While this is a 1st amendment case, the justices articulated some very important words regarding rights, all rights..

To wit, If an exercising of a right can be taxed, the government is capable of making it prohibitively expensive and could be done/exercised only by the wealthy.
Therefore, fees, costs of permits, licensing costs, etc, could become only affordable by the wealthy. (emphasis mine).

" Certain fundamental human rights have prerogative".. Murdock v PA. And finally and most important. " States do not have the power to license or tax, a right guaranteed to the people". Again Murdock...

We need look outside the prism of the 2nd amendment and we need to start incorporating the language of each amendment so that they each support one another.

When Jefferson said, " bind down the public officials with the chains of the Constitution".. He meant the whole constitution, not simply one amendment.
Each individual amendment supports the whole document.

" We must never forget that it is a Constitution, A single rational document as opposed to a pile of unconnected clauses that we are expounding" Justice Marshall.

We must connect each amendment, each clause, into a simple rational document..

My .02
Regards
CCJ
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
We must also add, The Doctrine of Selective Incorporation" into our legal arsenal.

Selective incorporation is a Constitutional doctrine that ensures states CANNOT enact laws that take away the constitutional rights of American citizens that are enshrined in " the bill of rights".. Three cases in which the doctrine was relied upon, Gitlow v NY ( 1925) Brown v Board of Education (1954) Gideon v Wainwright (1963).. And now happily, I would add, MC Donald v City of Chicago (2010), A case we should all be very familiar with and pleased thereof.

A case in which the Justices linked the 2nd amendment with the 14th amendment to render their decision, hence we need to always be incorporating each amendment that applies, in support of individual rights and liberties..

Another great tidbit about Mc Donald, is that it overturned a previous horrible decision by the Supremes in (United States v Cruikshank) from 1876, it took 124 years to decide that the first and second amendments applied equally to the State and the federal Government. That time frame is unreal, where was justice for those 124 years?

States can no longer enslave us with their draconian gun laws, law abiding citizens and their right to protect themselves and their posterity, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!..

In the words of my favorite Founder Mr.Thomas Paine.. " Men should not petition for rights, but take them"

And for us law-abiding citizens herein. " Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them".

Please forgive my non-laconic prose.

My .02
CCJ
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
(2) 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.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
This is not a 2A case, it is a privilege card case, and Scalia already made his remarks on CC permits. Kennedy would have ruled using Scalia's words in Heller to rule against the petitioner.
Absolutely. However, the petitioner should still find relief because the court is free to do whatever it wants and California created this situation. Big news coming Monday about Norman vs Florida supposedly. Money pouring in and big name lawyers and NRA getting behind it according to the rumor mill. I'm not excited though unless Ginsburg or Kennedy go away. I just don't see 5 votes for unlicensed open carry. I don't even think they'll get licensed open carry for Floridians with Kennedy on there.
 

Lawful Aim

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
131
Location
USA
*Left justification of this post caused the wording to be hidden behind the left margin, hence the center justification.

As this Court has emphasized: “There must be
a direct causal link between the restriction imposed
and the injury to be prevented.”
United States v.
Alvarez
, 567 U.S. 709, 725 (2012). Here, any link is
based on conjecture.
This Court has rejected a plea “to treat the right
recognized in
Heller
as a second-class right, subject to
an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill
of Rights guarantees . . . .”
McDonald
, 561 U.S. at 780.
The court below did just that with its speculative
findings instead of conducting an objective analysis of
whether the ban “will in fact alleviate the[] harms in
a direct and material way.”
Turner I
, 512 U.S. at 664.
C. The Speculative “Reasonable Fit” Found
Below Failed the Test of Whether a
Restriction
Will in Fact Alleviate The Harms
Based on the post hoc argument of the State’s
counsel “in briefing before this Court,” the court below
found the open carry ban to be a reasonable fit with
public safety because “an armed attacker . . . might be
more likely to target an op
en carrier than a concealed
carrier” and “would be less likely to gain control of
firearms in public because
concealed firearms . . . could
not be viewed by ordinary sight.” App. 43a. Nothing
in the legislative or factual records suggested these
justifications, which were made without any support
in the Respondent’s Brief on the Merits at 22-23 and
simply copied by the court.

... ... ...

The reality, Justice Canady continued, is that

“opposition to open carrying stems not from concrete

public safety concerns but from the fact that many

people ‘are (sensibly or not) made uncomfortable by the

visible presence of a deadly weapon.’” App. 57a

(citation omitted). “But contemporary sensibilities

cannot be the test. Such sensibilities are no more a

basis for defeating the historic right to open carrying

than for defeating the understanding that the Second

Amendment recognizes the right of individuals to keep

33

and bear arms.” App. 57-58a. That is no more

justifiable than, as this Court recently held, banning

speech because it is offensive to some.

Matal v. Tam
,

137 S.Ct. 1744, 2017 WL 2621315, *19 (2017).

CONCLUSION

This Court should grant this petition for a writ

of certiorari.

 
Last edited:
Top