guns
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
Catatonic
Nine Lives
I am in Mod mode at all times ... no way to turn it on and off. I have another account so I can see what normal members see.
I don't see the posts unless I click "see Ignored Posts" link at bottom right.
Mods see all members if they come through the Mod Queue or Reported Queue.
wtf - I'm sorry I posted now ... Now I got a dang headache.
.
.
.
MAKAVELI
Well-Known Member
I know why you live here. The best weed in the country. Now pass that shiat to your right brotha.
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
Sorry, but you don't know me.I know why you live here. The best weed in the country. Now pass that shiat to your right brotha.
I don't do drugs.
I rarely drink.
You must be confusing me with your Democrat pals.
Just another thing in a long list you liberals always seem to get wrong.
baklava
I don’t work at UPS anymore.
You're not missing much
you meant the CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEALS, 2nd district.
NOT the 2nd district court of appeals federal level.
Either way, the CALIFORNIA 2nd district appellate court will not overturn these laws. They are historically pro regulations on guns.
TOS.
Heller did not say that weapons could be banned except in the home. Heller did say CCW could be restricted but historical precedence was that Open carry was allowed when concealed was restricted. Your very liberal 9th circuit in the Peruta En Banc opinion left open the door that open carry may be required to be available if concealed is not.
From cases in the Heller Quote in your post #13035
State V. Chandler -
"The act of the 25th of March, 1813, makes it a misdemeanor to be "found with a concealed weapon, such as a dirk, dagger, knife, pistol, or any other deadly weapon concealed in his bosom, coat, or any other place about him, that does not appear in full view." This law became absolutely necessary to (p.490)counteract a vicious state of society, growing out of the habit of carrying concealed weapons, and to prevent bloodshed and assassinations committed upon unsuspecting persons. It interfered with no man's right to carry arms (to use its words) "in full open view," which places men upon an equality. This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if neccessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."
Nunn V. State -
"A law which merely inhibits the wearing of certain weapons in
a concealed manner is valid. But so far as it cuts off the
exercise of the right of the citizen altogether to bear arms, or,
under the color of prescribing the mode, renders the right itself
useless--it is in conflict with the Constitution, and void."
Last edited:
realbrown1
Annoy a liberal today. Hit them with facts.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Tennessee Businesses That Disarm Concealed Carry Permit Holders Now Liable for Their Safety - Breitbart
The summary of SB 1736 makes is clear:
Present law authorizes persons in control of property to post a notice that prohibits firearms on the premises. This bill imposes a duty of care on any person who posts their property to prohibit firearms whereby such person will be responsible for the safety of any handgun carry permit holder while the permit holder is on the posted premises and traversing any area to and from the premises and the location where the permit holder’s firearm is stored. The duty of care created by this bill will extend to the conduct of other invitees, trespassers, employees of the person or entity, vicious animals, wild animals, and defensible man-made and natural hazards.
SB 1736 passed the Senate by a vote of 26 to 4 on March 16. It passed the House by a vote of 77 to 13 on April 18. Governor Bill Haslam (R) signed SB 1736 on April 27.
The summary of SB 1736 makes is clear:
Present law authorizes persons in control of property to post a notice that prohibits firearms on the premises. This bill imposes a duty of care on any person who posts their property to prohibit firearms whereby such person will be responsible for the safety of any handgun carry permit holder while the permit holder is on the posted premises and traversing any area to and from the premises and the location where the permit holder’s firearm is stored. The duty of care created by this bill will extend to the conduct of other invitees, trespassers, employees of the person or entity, vicious animals, wild animals, and defensible man-made and natural hazards.
SB 1736 passed the Senate by a vote of 26 to 4 on March 16. It passed the House by a vote of 77 to 13 on April 18. Governor Bill Haslam (R) signed SB 1736 on April 27.
iF you can't afford food, you shouldn't be buying cigarettes .... peeve of mine at a food bank..
MAKAVELI
Well-Known Member
Can you buy cigarettes at a food bank?
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Along with lottery tickets.
MAKAVELI
Well-Known Member
I don't know where you live but where I'm from they only give out food.
nope, but the 5 dollar pack is more important than food...
MAKAVELI
Well-Known Member
In today's addicted society whether white , Black, Hispanic, Asian, or whatever, do you really think that is going to change?
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
How convenient that the politicians didn't include government buildings.... hypocrites
.I have - miscellaneous excerpts below regarding banning types of guns and carry:
"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
"At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “Surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization."
" c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment s, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”16"
" It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting."
"Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time."
The Heller decision was geared towards Heller asking for relief to have handguns in the home so the decision allowed that. Don't mis-judge the specific relief Heller asked for as being the entirety of the 2nd amendment's protections. The decision clearly laid the case for carry of some sort, whether open or concealed, and for the right to keep and bear arms that are in common usage, like the AR-15.
Please provide specifics to anything that says otherwise.
Similar threads
