Plax in prison

[madbadger]

Sorry, but I'm not following this. You said:

Again, this just isn't a correct interpretation of the actual holding of the court. Feel free to show me where in this opinion its stated that the Second Amendment a universal right to carry a firearm in public. At best, they state that there are legitimate reasons - specifically self-defense - for a person to want to carry a weapon in public, hence why they struck down the "proper cause" requirement of New York's statute. Most of the other time spent on the topic is largely dicta which doesn't control any further rulings of the court (though they've largely dispensed with any idea that long-standing precedent is settled, so I guess it's immaterial either way).

A completely different case from more than a decade prior, Heller, does (as you identify) stand for the proposition that a law banning a person from having a firearm in their home was unconstitutional (provided that they weren't disqualified from the Second Amendment's protections). But I don't see how this makes your above statement regarding what the actual holding of Bruen is somehow correct. And moreover, Heller dealt largely with an interpretation of the term "militia" - something not at issue at all in Bruen.

It's similarly farcical to imply Burress did what he did out of some upstanding moral belief that the law was unconstitutional and he would someday be exonerated or proven correct. You're also assuming that in the absence of a "proper cause" requirement, New York wouldn't be allowed to impose any conditions on the issuance of a concealed carry license and Burress would have been issued a license and legally allowed to carry. Except that's not what Bruen says, and even Alito's concurrence makes it clear that they were not saying whether any sort of limitation was unconstitutional, simply the one at issue. And guess what? The revised statute that New York implemented after Bruen prevents concealed carry license holders from bringing their weapons into bars. Under that schema, Burress still (presuming he applied for a license and got it) would have broken the law by doing what he did under the current iteration of the statute.

 Actually read the decision. If you did you'd have seen this.

"The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not 'a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees. We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need."

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/in-6-3-ruling-court-strikes-down-new-yorks-concealed-carry-law/

[T200]

I agree with @kartanoman in that there's good info here. Let's not derail the conversation with veering into politics or personal attacks.

[TONKA56]

What was Plaxico Burress actually charged with and subsequently convicted of?

[Slugsy-Narrows]

I agree with @kartanoman in that there's good info here. Let's not derail the conversation with veering into politics or personal attacks.

I think for how hot this topic could be all have really done a great job being respectful and keeping it going as they have! 

Just shows there can be dialog and each side can post their views and beliefs, have a conversation, hopefully each side even if they don't agree can see where the other side comes from and maybe both sides learn a little something and open up their minds a bit more about it all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ed Vette]

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

[MightyGiants]

There are been a few references to self-defense or protection.  The problem with that particular claim is that the data doesn't support the claim.  For example, if you get a gun for your home to protect yourself and your family:

In a landmark study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1993, researchers found that having a gun in the home was linked with nearly three times higher odds that someone would be killed at home by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

There are similar studies that show homicide rates go up when laws are loosened to allow more people to carry firearms in public.

There was mention of the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms, but what is ignored is the stipulation about "well-regulated militia," which strangely suggests the founding fathers supported regulating firearms.

In the end, we can do nothing (regardless of why) and continue to be the only 1st world country sacrificing so many innocent people to mass shooters; we can add more guns and make it easier to carry guns which will only make things worse, or we can make efforts to reign in the world record numbers of guns we have in this country.



It's hard not to look at that graph and not see why the US is where it is when consider other high income countries

[TONKA56]

"Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was
 in an effective shape to fight."
In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

[Slugsy-Narrows]

There are been a few references to self-defense or protection.  The problem with that particular claim is that the data doesn't support the claim.  For example, if you get a gun for your home to protect yourself and your family:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

There are similar studies that show homicide rates go up when laws are loosened to allow more people to carry firearms in public.

There was mention of the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms, but what is ignored is the stipulation about "well-regulated militia," which strangely suggests the founding fathers supported regulating firearms.

In the end, we can do nothing (regardless of why) and continue to be the only 1st world country sacrificing so many innocent people to mass shooters; we can add more guns and make it easier to carry guns which will only make things worse, or we can make efforts to reign in the world record numbers of guns we have in this country.



It's hard not to look at that graph and not see why the US is where it is when consider other high income countries

Rich

You are stretching and trying to shoe horn in regulating firearms with regulating a militia

To regulate a militia is to create a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

Which has nothing to do with regulating firearms.

Have you also looked up and researched how many citizens in this country by carrying a firearm or having one in their homes have saved countless lives and thwarted criminals from crimes/robberies and home invasions?

The media and news does their best to suppress these stories and information on this.  Take just recently in Indiana, a man with a conceal carry killed a shooter in the mall and saved many lives.  This story got little to no media attention on countless news stations.  It's one of thousands or more of incidents a year where store owners, home owners, and every day citizens help and save their fellow man because they have the right to bare arms and choose to exercise that right.

Statistics will always be tweaked to serve the cause for which the person is doing the analysis for.  Both sides do it.

I believe that it comes down to is this, in my opinion.

The constitution gives you the right.

If SOMEONE chooses not to exercise their right that is their choice.

To limit others rights because of personal belief is not right.

People's rights don't end, where others beliefs begin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[T200]

"Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was
 in an effective shape to fight."
In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

I could be wrong or off-base, but wasn't the arming of citizens due the the lack of a "national" army/defense to protect against the Native Americans and British back then?

We now have, and have had, the most powerful military on the face of the Earth. Do the citizens need access to guns the way they did back then?

[Ed Vette]

I could be wrong or off-base, but wasn't the arming of citizens due the the lack of a "national" army/defense to protect against the Native Americans and British back then?

We now have, and have had, the most powerful military on the face of the Earth. Do the citizens need access to guns the way they did back then?

Ask the people of Ukraine that question or consider security against tyranny. Not that anyone would ever attempt to undermine an election or seize control of the nation by circumventing the constitution.   

[Slugsy-Narrows]

I could be wrong or off-base, but wasn't the arming of citizens due the the lack of a "national" army/defense to protect against the Native Americans and British back then?

We now have, and have had, the most powerful military on the face of the Earth. Do the citizens need access to guns the way they did back then?

T

There is also this......

https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again

As soon as 2018 the courts have again affirmed that the police have NO DUTY to protect you.

So as Ed pointed out an invasion you would want to be armed, but also with the courts ruling that it's not up to the police to protect you, they are to uphold the law, it is then up to you to protect yourself family and property.

The 2A gives us the right to protect ourselves, both foreign AND DOMESTIC!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ed Vette]

T

There is also this......

https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again

As soon as 2018 the courts have again affirmed that the police have NO DUTY to protect you.

So as Ed pointed out an invasion you would want to be armed, but also with the courts ruling that it's not up to the police to protect you, they are to uphold the law, it is then up to you to protect yourself family and property.

The 2A gives us the right to protect ourselves, both foreign AND DOMESTIC!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That domestic threat has been underscored the last two years if anyone hasn't been paying attention.

[TONKA56]

I could be wrong or off-base, but wasn't the arming of citizens due the the lack of a "national" army/defense to protect against the Native Americans and British back then?

We now have, and have had, the most powerful military on the face of the Earth. Do the citizens need access to guns the way they did back then?

The reasoning behind the 2nd amendment is that it holds the government ultimately accountable to the people and not the other way around. All other considerations such as self defense and hunting are secondary and more than occasionally used as straw men. Prior to the drafting of the Bill Of Rights and certainly prior to the Enlightenment it was standard practice for the common citizen/peasant/serf/pleb to be denied by the ruling authorities the right to keep and bear arms. Those denied that right are little more than serfs/slaves. This is why the second amendment exists.

[TDToomer]

Gun violence psychology is not all that different from suicidal psychology. An industrial society had been created intentionally or not where people are forced to work in cubes...where they have ever ever diminishing opportunities for autonomy and self determination. We have moved away from the natural world. Social media is toxic to self esteem. Obviously I've grossly simplified this for the sake of brevity but the point is that the modern world is highly toxic to healthy self esteem and relationship with other humans.

Not easily fixed, but given the current climate, handing over all of our arms to a state that grows ever more totalitarian and hostile doesn't seem like a fantastic idea either.

I never suggested that! In fact no on this thread has. There are many things you can do beside doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING which is what the the NRA wants.

We are living in two different countries if you think the USA is a Totalitarian government.

[T200]

T

There is also this......

https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again

As soon as 2018 the courts have again affirmed that the police have NO DUTY to protect you.

So as Ed pointed out an invasion you would want to be armed, but also with the courts ruling that it's not up to the police to protect you, they are to uphold the law, it is then up to you to protect yourself family and property.

The 2A gives us the right to protect ourselves, both foreign AND DOMESTIC!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wasn't referring to the police. I was specifically talking about the military. Not sure if you served in the military but when we raise our right hand, we take the oath to defend the country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

As I mentioned, the 2A was necessary then because we did not have a dedicated military force. Today we do so our primary defense is the military and not individual citizens who do not wear the uniform.

Everyday citizens have the power of the vote to keep the government in check. Weapons are not necessary to do that. The checks and balances of power within the government prevent any one branch from taking over.