Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
look who wrote this shocking! or was his a closet progressive judge???
the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
|
All Scalia is doing here is reciting the law and the unremarkable legal condition as it relates to the public carriage of arms by private citizens. Your chopping of the quote stomps the subject being discussed into a mudhole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
“Nothing in our opinion should 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.”
|
And what has become the most significant part of that paragraph is
always left off by the left:
26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”
|
LMAO. When you learn what all that actually means, especially what "dangerous and unusual" weapons are, and why "dangerous and unusual" weapons are not protected arms, you will be much less likely to quote that passage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”
|
There are two reasons that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were not considered to violate the 2nd Amendment -- First is that the 2nd Amendment had no effect on state laws (until 2010). Second, establishing in law the manner of carriage of arms by citizens has always been a power of the state.
Recently, federal courts have held that the rights that the 2nd Amendment does protect (to keep and
bear arms) secures a right to openly carry a gun in public for self defense and states are bound to respect that right.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...utional-right/
Whether that forces a state in the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction to institute a 'shall issue' concealed carry permit because they don't want to see a citizen's gun, is up to those states. One way or another, the state must recognize the citizen's right to be armed in public for self defense.
This, like state assault weapon bans, will soon be before the Supreme Court; you should enjoy your illegitimate laws while they last.
.