Jump to content

... Shall NOT be infringed.


TomKoz

Recommended Posts

I have been on this site for almost 10 years now.

 

I have watched, donated, and worked for getting IL conceal carry.

 

Question. Has the ... Shall NOT be infringed. portion of the of the 2A actually ever been challenged??

 

I see all sorts of cases. But have yet, at least I cant remember, one specifically arguing the

...Shall NOT be infringed. portion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been on this site for almost 10 years now.

 

I have watched, donated, and worked for getting IL conceal carry.

 

Question. Has the ... Shall NOT be infringed. portion of the of the 2A actually ever been challenged??

 

I see all sorts of cases. But have yet, at least I cant remember, one specifically arguing the

...Shall NOT be infringed. portion.

 

I believe this is the next step now that the Supreme Court has ruled it an individual right. No right is absolute, so we need a Supreme Court case that defines and applies what level of scrutiny should be applied to the 2nd as an individual right (it should be as strict as any other enumerated rights like the 1st) hopefully the NYSRPA is the start of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because a government doesn't recognize a Right of the People doesn't mean that the right doesn't exist.

 

 

Governments that deny recognition of the Rights of the People should find their own recognition as lawgivers challenged by the people they purportedly represent.

 

 

Steps on a slippery slope in later Amendments and court decisions have been reduced in law from Rights and Liberties to Privileges and Immunities to be reservedly granted.

 

 

This is an overstepping contrary to democracy.

 

 

The Bill of Rights was a concession to Anti-Federalists to forestall a second Constitutional Convention.

 

 

See "The Bill of Rights, the Fight to Secure America's Liberties" by Carol Berkin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Self-defense is a fundamental human right.

It is the fundamental right of life. It is the most important right.

Without the right to life, all other human rights become null and void.

Agreed !!

Even the lowly amoeba has the genetic instinct for self-preservation using its own resources. We, thanks to our greater mental capacity and technological achievements, have more options for defense available to us than just "physical prowess". There is no valid reason that we should be limited to our own physical capabilities instead of using our "tool-making/use" ability to lessen the disparity between opponents (such as male vs. female).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Self-defense is a fundamental human right.

It is the fundamental right of life. It is the most important right.

Without the right to life, all other human rights become null and void.

Agreed !!

Even the lowly amoeba ... (such as female vs. female). FIFY

 

 

Women are much more likely to have to defend themselves against men than men vs. women. (which is what you meant anyway :P)

 

My daughter is in college. She told me the other day that a boy had opened up her dorm room and peeked in. It was an accident (wrong door) and he was embarrassed and apologized and left right away but the college has a strict 'no weapons' policy. It occurred to me that to a woman, all men carry a weapon and I'm not just talking about their greater size and strength... Why can't my daughter have even a knife. I have an old West German spring-loaded extendable baton. I'd give that to her but she'd probably get in trouble with that as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been on this site for almost 10 years now.

 

I have watched, donated, and worked for getting IL conceal carry.

 

Question. Has the ... Shall NOT be infringed. portion of the of the 2A actually ever been challenged??

 

I see all sorts of cases. But have yet, at least I cant remember, one specifically arguing the

...Shall NOT be infringed. portion.

 

From my opening brief in Charles Nichols v. Gavin Newsom et al (formerly v. Edmund G. Brown Jr., et al).

 

"This Court is not allowed to engage in judicial interest-balancing, ends means testing, or to engage in its own historical analysis. The Second Amendment comes with its own standard of judicial review. If a law infringes on the Second Amendment right then it is unconstitutional."

 

You and I no doubt disagree as to whether or not the 19th-century prohibitions on concealed carry infringe on the Second Amendment right (I agree with the Heller decision), but to answer your question, "Yes. There is "one specifically arguing the ...Shall NOT be infringed. portion."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been on this site for almost 10 years now.

 

I have watched, donated, and worked for getting IL conceal carry.

 

Question. Has the ... Shall NOT be infringed. portion of the of the 2A actually ever been challenged??

 

I see all sorts of cases. But have yet, at least I cant remember, one specifically arguing the

...Shall NOT be infringed. portion.

As I understand it the FOID is an infringement and it would be a 14th amendment challenge. There might actually be more infringements than the FOID, but its an easy place to start.

The specific part of the 14th amendment is in section 1 sentence 2. From what I understand you can challenge the 2A restrictions from the side but not a direct challenge, I'm not sure of the why's.

 

The specific language is -

" No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

The problem as I understand it is there are many "Fudds", as stated on this site, that feel that the FOID does more good than bad by preventing people from purchasing firearms that shouldn't have them, despite the known failures of the system. For those wanting specific failures, 1. Aurora, 2. Chicago criminals in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I have been on this site for almost 10 years now.

 

I have watched, donated, and worked for getting IL conceal carry.

 

Question. Has the ... Shall NOT be infringed. portion of the of the 2A actually ever been challenged??

 

I see all sorts of cases. But have yet, at least I cant remember, one specifically arguing the

...Shall NOT be infringed. portion.

As I understand it the FOID is an infringement and it would be a 14th amendment challenge. There might actually be more infringements than the FOID, but its an easy place to start.

The specific part of the 14th amendment is in section 1 sentence 2. From what I understand you can challenge the 2A restrictions from the side but not a direct challenge, I'm not sure of the why's.

 

The specific language is -

" No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

The problem as I understand it is there are many "Fudds", as stated on this site, that feel that the FOID does more good than bad by preventing people from purchasing firearms that shouldn't have them, despite the known failures of the system. For those wanting specific failures, 1. Aurora, 2. Chicago criminals in general.

 

Challenging the FOID would be a direct Second Amendment challenge. If there are persons "similarly situated" who are treated unequally in some respect, such as in being issued a FOID or in not being required to have a FOID or some other relevant difference (e.g., race) then that would be a 14th Amendment challenge in addition to a 2A challenge.

 

The Supreme Court did not apply the Second Amendment to the states via the privileges or immunities clause. Justice Thomas filed a concurrence to the McDonald decision that said that is how he would have applied it to the states. The McDonald decision applied the Second Amendment to the states via the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. Justice Gorsuch views them as two lanes on the same highway but there is a very significant difference between the two methods of incorporation which Justice Thomas acknowledged in his concurrence to McDonald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember when the cops started carrying those and as they approached they would hold them over their shoulder just behind the head of the flashlight ready to bring them down on you if they thought you needed a good thump.

I like the flashlight idea, I think I'll do that.

Commonly called tonk lights because that’s the sound they make on someone’s head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 cell mag light — either C or D cell - or a 6 cell D cell (don’t think they make a 6 C cell) would be better. The 4 C works for smaller statures while the 6 D can be a formidable weapon.....

Maglite might make a 6 D cell flashlight (I don't know) but they do (or did) make a 5 D cell light because I have one. The problem is it is over 20 years old and is basically for "emergencies". There are a lot of women that would find its weight (4-5 lbs.) and 19.5" length cumbersome. It is also 1 5/8" in diameter on the battery compartment and 2 1/4" on the bulb area.

While the "baton" might cause her some trouble, as long she doesn't need it and keeps it collapsed, who is any the wiser?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...