Supreme Court Decision Extends Right to Keep and Bear Arms to all 50 States

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

Hunting is a privilege licensed.

That brings up a good question. The WI Constitution makes it a right. How can they charge a fee for a right?

You know this Doug, but for the entertainment of the rest:

The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

Article 1 Section 25 Wisconsin Constitution

 

[simmonsjoe]

Not to rain on your parade.

but there have been previous rulings, a long time ago:

US v Miller(307 U.S. 164) decided that a sawed-off shotgun could not be owned because it had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense."

This US v Miller case reversed the District courts INVALIDATION OF THE NFA of 1934.

Now that the right of the individual to bear arms for self defense has been recognized, I see no reason US v Miller could not be reversed, thereby invalidating the NFA.

 

[jt59]

Not just you... there are many more who understand what the end game of the Leftist elitist progressives is... total control one country at a time eventually paving the way for an Emperor of the Earth. And there are more people every day who are waking up.... which is why the progressive agenda is being pushed so hard and so fast here in the U.S. ... it MUST be accomplished before a new Congress convenes in January of next year.. or those who are resisting will slowly put a stop to the rise of a new era of the same old thing.... the common unwashed masses working off their asses for the benefit of the anointed ruling elite.

I've begun to think of the Leftist mindset as an entity all of it's own.. similar to the Borg of Star Trek fame. Inexorably marching forth assimilating everything in it's path, taking control of everything and everyone, gladly sacrificing individual members for the good of the collective (the agenda).

And, like the crew of the starship Enterprise, we fight those individual members thinking we are defending ourselves and everything we hold dear never realizing that as long as we fight individual battles we are losing the real war... and that war is a war of minds, a war that is being won by the collective insinuating it's agenda into our schools and media where minds are being filled with collective thinking, attitudes, and beliefs.... truly being "assimilated".

But... resistance is NOT futile. The tide is turning because on some level everyone, especially the Leftists, understand that guns equal freedom from oppression and control... and the opportunity to resist being "assimilated" into the controlled collective. Which is why the Leftists absolutely MUST clamp down on... or eliminate... the ability of the unwashed common folk to "keep and bear arms".

Because a man or woman with a gun can resist being "assimilated" and controlled.

With all that in mind it is no surprise to me that in the wake of the McDonald v Chicago decision draconian gun control measures instantly reared their ugly head. The Leftists understand that this landmark decision means slow incremental gun control measures can now be challenged and defeated so a new tactic is being used... the tactic of quickly flooding the scene with everything but the kitchen sink knowing most of it will fall...... but some of it will remain in effect. And, to the Leftist, even a little that stood the challenge means a little more control... and the opportunity to keep on flooding.. and flooding.. and flooding.. until darn near everything they started out with will end up withstanding challenges... and they still win in the end...

I think you are describing the Overton Window.....Although I am new here, I agree with much of what you are saying, in the current political environment, conservative independents (or those in Republican clothing) are merely only able to stem the tide, but it ultimately rushes on....Your analogy to the Borg withstanding, everytime someone oc'ing a phaser pulled and fired, it was rendered useless on the next shot....phase shifting....what was the final solution? Movie three or four? But don't get me started on West Wing and the straight line correlations to what's going on today....I think Obomo is only up to season four......it's his primer....it's never a clean win (shot), it's a process and we just have to keep on tracking.

 

[SlackwareRobert]

So, what does a SCOTUS ruling do to the TERRITORIES? Is this one of the rights Guam gets
to ignore since they aren't a state? Or do they fall under Heller as federal land in limbo like DC?
What about our citizens overseas, can they now carry in our embassies? They are US soil by international law.

 

[ixtow]

These headlines are still mind blowing... EXTENDS the Right? It seems to have been on record as a protected, pre-existing Right for a rather long time now. Freedom haters are simply not going to get away with ignoring it anymore. How does this extend anything? It seems to merely recognize what anyone with the ability to read and exercise basic common-sense already knows...

 

[wrightme]

These headlines are still mind blowing... EXTENDS the Right? It seems to have been on record as a protected, pre-existing Right for a rather long time now. Freedom haters are simply not going to get away with ignoring it anymore. How does this extend anything? It seems to merely recognize what anyone with the ability to read and exercise basic common-sense already knows...

That is inaccurate. Unless you can find a reference to the BoR being incorporated against the States prior to the 14th amendment.

The headline is accurate. Until now, the States had their own Rights for citizens, and the BoR were not typically considered all-inclusive against the States. States Rights took precedence. We may not agree with this, but that WAS the reality for quite a long portion of our countryhood.

 

[rodbender]

That is inaccurate. Unless you can find a reference to the BoR being incorporated against the States prior to the 14th amendment.

The headline is accurate. Until now, the States had their own Rights for citizens, and the BoR were not typically considered all-inclusive against the States. States Rights took precedence. We may not agree with this, but that WAS the reality for quite a long portion of our countryhood.

The right to self defense has been around since time began, for all persons, hence the right of ownership of the tools to affect that right has as well. The decision does not extend it, it merely confirms it.

 

[wrightme]

The right to self defense has been around since time began, for all persons, hence the right of ownership of the tools to affect that right has as well. The decision does not extend it, it merely confirms it.

No, it does not. The states each had their own view of the 2nd Amendment, and all regulated it differently; thus infringing upon it. The Right to Self-defense ended up being separate from this, because the drafters left it that way. Whether we agree or not, the States DID infringe, and this Right was not granted for all citizens in the States until the 14th amendment was introduced. Further, the 2nd Amendment has NEVER been incorporated against the States, until McDonald.

To argue otherwise is to simply stand there and stomp your feet, saying "no, they can't have been doing that!"

They did. Now they cannot according to SCOTUS, the 14th amendment, and McDonald.

 

[simmonsjoe]

Nobody's listening.

I like how everyone ignored my post so they can keep up the doom and gloom talk. Yes it could happen. Don't hasten the day, however.
[video=youtube;xPVSE5jg_LY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPVSE5jg_LY[/video]

 

[rodbender]

No, it does not. The states each had their own view of the 2nd Amendment, and all regulated it differently; thus infringing upon it. The Right to Self-defense ended up being separate from this, because the drafters left it that way. Whether we agree or not, the States DID infringe, and this Right was not granted for all citizens in the States until the 14th amendment was introduced. Further, the 2nd Amendment has NEVER been incorporated against the States, until McDonald.

To argue otherwise is to simply stand there and stomp your feet, saying "no, they can't have been doing that!"

They did. Now they cannot according to SCOTUS, the 14th amendment, and McDonald.

I already know everything you just said. The states did infringe on RKBA. This does not mean the right wasn't there. Since the right was already there, it can not be extended to the states, only confirmed that it is there.

 

[wrightme]

I already know everything you just said. The states did infringe on RKBA. This does not mean the right wasn't there. Since the right was already there, it can not be extended to the states, only confirmed that it is there.

The states did infringe upon it. Thus, by operation of law, it was not there.

 

[ixtow]

That is inaccurate. Unless you can find a reference to the BoR being incorporated against the States prior to the 14th amendment.

The headline is accurate. Until now, the States had their own Rights for citizens, and the BoR were not typically considered all-inclusive against the States. States Rights took precedence. We may not agree with this, but that WAS the reality for quite a long portion of our countryhood.

You just like to argue with me.

The 1st Amendment didn't need the 14th... Derp.

 

[wrightme]

You just like to argue with me.

The 1st Amendment didn't need the 14th... Derp.

Yet the others did.......
You just like to argue with me.

 

[eye95]

You just like to argue with me.

The 1st Amendment didn't need the 14th... Derp.

Yet the others did.......
You just like to argue with me.

You are correct. He is wrong.

The First Amendment specifically restricts only the Feds: "Congress shall make no law..." Without the 14th, and court decisions incorporating the BoR, States were free to make laws that the feds could not.

The Second Amendment's language did not specifically target the feds. "Shall not be infringed" does not specify who is restricted from infringing. Plain reading means that no one may infringe. (Yeah, I know that courts have not applied that particular plain reading. Would've saved a lot of trouble if they had.)

 

[Dreamer]

US v Miller(307 U.S. 164) decided that a sawed-off shotgun could not be owned because it had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense."

I'm sure that Mossberg, Remmington, and the US Marine Corps would be surprised to learn that SBS's are not "ordinary military equipment"...

I guess all those short-barreled shotguns being used by the USMC and the Army are just for hunting the elusive and rare "Desert Mallard" or something...

Now that the right of the individual to bear arms for self defense has been recognized, I see no reason US v Miller could not be reversed, thereby invalidating the NFA.

The NFA has been invalid since the day it was enacted. It is unconstitutional on it's face. It violates logic. It states as fact several things that are PROVEABLE as being untrue.

Under the "Miller Standard", considering the currently-issued firearms used by our military, the NFA would HAVE to be struck down, because EVERY SINGLE ITEM it restricts are, in fact, "ordinary military equipment" used every day by tens of thousands of soldiers, sailors and airmen, in defense of the US...

 

[rodbender]

I'm sure that Mossberg, Remmington, and the US Marine Corps would be surprised to learn that SBS's are not "ordinary military equipment"...

I guess all those short-barreled shotguns being used by the USMC and the Army are just for hunting the elusive and rare "Desert Mallard" or something...




The NFA has been invalid since the day it was enacted. It is unconstitutional on it's face. It violates logic. It states as fact several things that are PROVEABLE as being untrue.

Under the "Miller Standard", considering the currently-issued firearms used by our military, the NFA would HAVE to be struck down, because EVERY SINGLE ITEM it restricts are, in fact, "ordinary military equipment" used every day by tens of thousands of soldiers, sailors and airmen, in defense of the US...

That's right, Dreamer. Now if eye95 would read the framers from the time of the ConCon (that would be 1787 A.D.), he would find out that the entire Constitution was meant specifically to restrict only the Feds and not the states at all.

 

[JohnH]

I'm sure that Mossberg, Remmington, and the US Marine Corps would be surprised to learn that SBS's are not "ordinary military equipment"...

I guess all those short-barreled shotguns being used by the USMC and the Army are just for hunting the elusive and rare "Desert Mallard" or something...




The NFA has been invalid since the day it was enacted. It is unconstitutional on it's face. It violates logic. It states as fact several things that are PROVEABLE as being untrue.

Under the "Miller Standard", considering the currently-issued firearms used by our military, the NFA would HAVE to be struck down, because EVERY SINGLE ITEM it restricts are, in fact, "ordinary military equipment" used every day by tens of thousands of soldiers, sailors and airmen, in defense of the US...

You prolly won't like me very much, but if you research Miller I believe you'll find that the gun in question was a double barrel sawn down to 12" with a pistol grip. Certainly, US forces have used short barreled shotguns, 18"-20" pumps and self loaders. The closest arms I can recall in use to a sawn off pistol length double barrel is smooth bore singleshot flint or percussion pistols. The Confederate cavalry did use a short barreled 69 caliber smoothbore carbine IIRC, but it did have a full shoulder stock. No one has used a pistol length shotgun to my knowledge (limited as it is, I'm certainly open to enlightenment) This will be the problem; showing that such a gun has been commonly used by troops. Won't happen. As to full auto fire weapons, they will simply rename them destructive devises. They will also lean on the idea that they are uncommon, never mind that it was a constitutionally questionable law that made them so.

Back to our shotgun for a moment, while it could certainly be argued that such a sawn down weapon could be useful in certain military environments, that it's use would be limited to special needs will be the killer. Personally I'd much rather have an M-16 in any variation than a two shot gun. At close quarters, any 1911 or P-38 would be more useful. It is not my purpose to be anti here, just that I think such a sawn off is more useful as a personal defense gun in the home or car than in a military setting. If there is a way to attack it on that front, that should be the tack.

Since the Heller decision has the moved the criteria from being soley militia oriented to self defense oriented it would seem there would be room for changing or eliminating the NFA regulation of SBS's. Just think how useful a 12 or 14" pump would be. Just as nice would be if a maker would offer a pistol length rifled tube on a pump action with a pistol grip, since we are talking about guns with a maximum useful range of 30 yeards anyway. And don't forget what happened with the 10 round magazine limit on pistols. That law created a plethora of thin, concealable semiautomatics, rather than being the death nell of semiautomatic pistols that anti's thought it would be.

But in the end the problem is going to be who has traditionally used SBS's with barrels shorter than 18"... the bad guys. In this we will come up against two things Scalia quoted in Heller from Blackstone; First, that the right is not to carry any weapon whatsover, any place wherever, for any purpose whatever and that what is protected does not include unusual or exceptionally destructive devices. (What the hell woud that have been in Blackstones time???) An SBS would certainly qualify for the latter half of that statement, as it's intention is to create a weapon capable of making a larger wound. How much water real world ballistics that idea would hold is a different matter. S##t we got judges who either can't read or purposely won't adhere to what they do read. The judge who upheld the most recent revision of the DC gun ban wrote in the opinion that assault weapons were a choice weapon of criminals... in the face of over 20 years of overwhelming evidence they are used in less than 1% of crimes. IMO, overturning Miller or NFA 34 is wishful thinking.

 

[Dreamer]

That's right, Dreamer. Now if eye95 would read the framers from the time of the ConCon (that would be 1787 A.D.), he would find out that the entire Constitution was meant specifically to restrict only the Feds and not the states at all.

Well, I'm sort of the "yes and no" school with regards to that...

The Constitution was intended to delineate the limited powers of the Federal government, that is true. However, those rights are described as "unalienable". This means they are pre-existent to ANY government, and are inherant to the human condition, and their exercise and security is beyond the scope of ANY government.

Any government.

I think that perhaps they didn't delineate that these rights couldn't be abridged by the states or local goveernments, because they felt that those more local forms of government would be more directly answerable to the People, and therefore didn't have to be "reminded" that these rights were unalienable. They probably felt that it was, as they wrote, "self evident" that these rights were fundamental. Perhaps they had too much faith in the People to keep their local and state governments in line. Since all the states signed on to the constitution in Ratification, they probably assumed that the States actually agreed with the terms of the deal...

Unfortunately, political duplicity has been around for a LONG time, an it appears that this assumption (if it were made) was ill-conceived...

Legally, yes, I suppose an argument can be made that States and municipalities CAN pass laws that are contrary to the US Constitution. A weak argument, but the argument can be and has been made.

What is inarguable, however, is that states and municipalities do not have the MORAL authority to abridge these rights...

Unfortunately, morals and ethics have little place (or utility) in a court of law...

 

[wrightme]

I see this as a well thought-out and clear comment on the actual. Thank you.

Well, I'm sort of the "yes and no" school with regards to that...

The Constitution was intended to delineate the limited powers of the Federal government, that is true. However, those rights are described as "unalienable". This means they are pre-existent to ANY government, and are inherant to the human condition, and their exercise and security is beyond the scope of ANY government.

Any government.

I think that perhaps they didn't delineate that these rights couldn't be abridged by the states or local goveernments, because they felt that those more local forms of government would be more directly answerable to the People, and therefore didn't have to be "reminded" that these rights were unalienable. They probably felt that it was, as they wrote, "self evident" that these rights were fundamental. Perhaps they had too much faith in the People to keep their local and state governments in line. Since all the states signed on to the constitution in Ratification, they probably assumed that the States actually agreed with the terms of the deal...

Unfortunately, political duplicity has been around for a LONG time, an it appears that this assumption (if it were made) was ill-conceived...

Legally, yes, I suppose an argument can be made that States and municipalities CAN pass laws that are contrary to the US Constitution. A weak argument, but the argument can be and has been made.

What is inarguable, however, is that states and municipalities do not have the MORAL authority to abridge these rights...

Unfortunately, morals and ethics have little place (or utility) in a court of law...

 

[Dreamer]

First, that the right is not to carry any weapon whatsover, any place wherever, for any purpose whatever and that what is protected does not include unusual or exceptionally destructive devices. (What the hell woud that have been in Blackstones time???)

Blunderbusses. Grenades. Hand Mortars. Grenade Muskets...

There were a LOT of VERY destructive firearms back then. The catch was that a lot of them were as dangerous for the person holding the stock as they were for the person in front of the muzzle...