Well, it’s been a while (well over a decade) since I got my CCW and I haven’t kept it up or kept up with the changes. The point is there are already a list of restricted places where you can’t take a gun, and that wouldn’t change even if universal open carry were applied at a federal level, instead of decided as today at the state level. It wouldn’t be a violation of the Constitution to continue such limitations either.
Well, actually hiking is the only time when I would want to Open carry. Not shopping at Walmart.
Some parks have quite a few dangerous predators*. And there have been a few murders on trails.
When I had a CCW (and was a kinda LEO) I did open carry when on hikes. In a flapover, not* too* obvious. Never had to use it.
- of the two legged variety, mostly. Homeless camps, drunk gangbangers, and the like.
No. He is referring to this thread which was more focused on cases germane to California.
The underlying assumption in this and your preceding points appears to be that this 9th Circuit Young ruling was indisputably correct, in light of the 2nd Amendment and the Heller interpretation. I disagree. The three-judge panel was not unanimous, the Hawaii attorney general agrees with the dissenting judge, and so did the lower court to which the case has now been sent back. As I understand it, the issue is far from over.
That said, if this ends up in the Supreme Court you and I both know how it will be decided, and we both know how the ruling will be split. The Supreme Court today is hardly less political than Congress itself.
In that light, yes, I do think that Heller was wrongly decided, and four other justices most emphatically thought so, too. There was a chance that the US could have been enabled to enact reasonable gun laws despite being hamstrung by an archaic amendment that no longer had a purpose, and the Heller ruling totally scuttled that opportunity.
More broadly and philosophically, I submit the following perspective. I mentioned upthread that the gun used in the recent mass shooting in Toronto – a very rare event in Canada – was illegal and illegally obtained and had been traced to its origin in the US, where it’s extremely easy to get. Were it not for US gun proliferation, this shooting which killed two innocent young girls and wounded 13 others and shocked a nation would probably not have happened. This type of gun smuggling is not an isolated event: the government of Canada is extremely concerned about gun smuggling from the US, and so is the government of Mexico. The gun problem is of such magnitude in the US that it literally seeps across borders. It truly astounds me that anyone can rationally or morally justify allowing the US to fester with a gun proliferation problem of such magnitude that other nations fear even being close to it.
To address your analogy, if it turned out that reading and literacy were useless, what would be the purpose of such an amendment? Would rational people not then conclude that an amendment so worded, with such a justification, was ill-advised and pointless and should be repealed? IOW, the prefatory clause is inseparably part and parcel of the whole.
Now with that in mind, one can ask, what is the value of militias today in protecting the national security of the United States? Is it not, in fact, exactly zero compared to how they were regarded in the 18th century? Is the entirety of the Second Amendment not, in fact, just as archaic and even more useless than the Third? Is it not, in fact, in light of the epidemic of gun violence, entirely counterproductive by seriously limiting the enactment of effective laws to an extent unprecedented anywhere else in the industrialized world?
The illogical nature of this thinking is rather astonishing. On the first part, when guns are as plentiful and trivially easy to acquire as they are in the US, the prohibition against possession by felons and the mentally ill is demonstrably so impossible as to be a ludicrous proposition, the demonstration of such being the frequency with which gun crimes are committed by felons and the mentally ill. On the second part, it’s remarkable that relative safety from being shot should be limited to schools and government buildings. The position the law takes in other countries is that relative safety from being shot should prevail everywhere. I’d also love to know how the NRA squares this with their claim that more guns make people safer; by this logic, schools and government buildings must be exceptionally unsafe, and in fact I’ve even heard a few NRA nuts make that exact claim.
DC and Chicago, the laws on whom the Heller decision was based- more or less banned the possession and sale of all handguns, and most guns. Very unreasonable gun laws.
Well, yes, guns can cross borders, which proves that gun control is pointless. Untill you can ban guns in every nation on earth.
There is no “epidemic” of "gun violence’. As I showed, violent crime and murder rates are on a steep downward curve.
Right, felons can get guns, which again proves gun control is useless.
Schools and government buildings have police guards and metal detectors. Do you want those everywhere? Nor does it seems that schools are in fact, any more safe.
Or just the US, which I think means that you just argued that gun control in the US is necessary.
By what possible logic?
No, other nations complain guns come into their borders from other nations also.
But in order for Gun control in the USA to work, you’d have to have a National gun ban, a house to house search and confiscation of the 300 millions guns now in the USA. Otherwise there’d till be guns for felons to get ahold of and to send to Canada, etc, right?
Otherwise, not matter what gun control laws you’d pass, they would always fail (just like they did in Chicago and DC) and the excuse would always be (just like DC and Chicago used) that the guns are coming in from other areas with looser gun laws.
Because, In the USA, all Gun control laws have failed. And that is always the excuse.
No, it proves the opposite. It proves the truth of the part of my post that you edited out, not only failing to address it, but, significantly, failing to even quote it. Here it is again, for your convenience:
The facts beg to differ: America’s unique gun violence problem
I’m not going to tell you that it would be possible to enact a national gun ban in america. We just have to accept the fact that there’s going to be law-abiding people providing guns to criminals forever, and that if I ever get killed by a gun I’ll know I have the law-abiding gun owners to thank for it.
Fortunately me being killed by a gun is unlikely, but if I wanted it to be even less likely I’d go to pretty much any first-world country other than this one.
Yes, exactly, guns can cross borders. So until and unless you get a World government to ban all guns in all nations, gun control is useless.
Yes, American has more murders than some nations, the one they choose to compare.
However, overall it sits right in the middle of world wide homicide rates. Of 219 nations American sits at 87. Sure, too high, but hardly unique, unless you do as your bogus cite does- cherry pick stats.
With Mexico having a rate four to five times higher, Russia more than twice as high, and El Salvador being nearly 16 times as high. And dont tell me Russia is getting it’s guns from the USA.
But the thing is, in order to have a “epidemic” as you claim, the rates must be increasing, while violent crime and murder rates in America are in a sharp decline, despite more guns that ever before.
Or criminals supplying guns to criminals.
Mexico is a first-world country, and now so is Russia.
Scalia did essentially delete a part of the constitution in Heller by negating the militia part with a specious argument.
To think otherwise is to assume the FFs in this one and only instance added a rhetorical flourish to the constitution that had no meaning.
Scalia also added a right to self defense that is not there. Neat coming from a guy who bemoaned a “right to privacy” not being in the constitution.
As with a militia in 1800 you’d meet a few times a year and practice.
Thanks, I forgot those were California cases. It is a good thread, just wondering if I missed something.
No, like we have been saying, all able bodied (white) males were part of the Militia back then, by Federal law. Thus, the right of the Militia to keep and bears arms is the right of the people to keep and bear arms, because Militia= people.
Perhaps you should read it again? The entire U.S. Bill of (Individual) Rights was created, debated, passed, and ratified in order to protect the unalienable rights of individuals.
Perhaps you should read it once. It’s not called “The U.S. Bill of (Individual) rights” and the tenth amendment mentions the rights of the states, in addition to those of the people. These silly generalizations of yours prove nothing - yes, the Bill of Rights is largely about the rights of individuals, but not exclusively so, therefore you have no basis to declare that since the whole thing is about individuals, of course the individual right to keep and bear arms is enshrined.
TIL People = white men
Who knew?:rolleyes:
?? You brought up “gun deaths”. I responded.
And the trend is an increase in gun related deaths:
With what? Sticks and rocks? The point is that if the government bans me from owning militia type arms, then I don’t have them to either train myself in their use or be trained in them. The federal government could, therefore, eliminate the state militias by disarming the populace and there would therefore be no “well regulated militia” So how do we stop this? We make sure that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
If the government cannot take away our militia arms, we can always raise a militia.
Of course the issue is far from over. Any gun case takes years and as I said upthread I fully expect this to be reversed en banc. Cert is a toss up so who knows. I do not assume that the Young ruling was indisputably correct - clearly people dispute it. The nature of the dispute is important though. If you dispute the result in Young because you think heller was wrongly decided, then the arguments are much different.
But for the sake of argument, let’s say Heller is settled law and is unchangeable, except via constitutional amendment. If that’s the landscape, would you still think Young was wrongly decided? **Much of the talk in this thread has nothing at all to do with Young. Murder rates, death rates, CCW, training, militias, the bill of rights, etc. all have nothing whatsoever to do with whether the constitution and current jurisprudence require the outcome in Young. ** So my question to you is, given Heller, do you think the constitution is a barrier to the outright prohibition of carrying firearms? Or is there a way you can reconcile the prohibition of carry with the result in Heller?
A secondary question is what I asked in post #73: what do you think bear means in the context of the 2nd?
This also has no bearing on whether Young was decided correctly. Only if an outcome based result is acceptable would things like this matter in the least.