PDA

View Full Version : Los Angeles Times on the 2nd, NRA, & SCOTUS


HowardW56
08-28-2011, 6:31 AM
Revisiting the 2nd Amendment's right to bear arms

So far the courts have limited guns mostly to the home. But the National Rifle Assn. is asking the Supreme Court to clarify that the right extends further.

By David G. Savage, Washington Bureau August 27, 2011, 5:42 p.m.

Reporting from Washington— The 2nd Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms" is proving to be a right to keep a gun at home, but so far not a right to bear a loaded firearm in public.

The Supreme Court breathed new life into the amendment when it struck down strict handgun bans in Washington and Chicago and spoke of the "inherent right of self-defense."

See below for the complete article.....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-guns-20110827,0,4745157.story

socal2310
08-28-2011, 6:59 AM
Wow, that was a remarkably balanced piece. One quote from the Brady Bunch and a firearms attorney got the last word. Talk about winning! This is the first time I've seen something that was neutral to positive tending from the LA Times that wasn't an opinion piece.

Ryan

dantodd
08-28-2011, 7:02 AM
Excellent form too OP. Descriptive title, Enough quoted material to decide if I wanted to follow the link but not so much as to run into fair use trouble. Nice all around.

javalos
08-28-2011, 7:30 AM
Interesting article. Both SCOTUS decisions that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and applicable throughout each state is the beginning, but it is extremely narrow minded and illogical to say that those that penned the Constitution meant that it only applies to inside the home. Many gun owners live in apartments and the apartment is their domicile, if apartment rules say guns aren't allowed, then what happens to the ruling? Who's right? The landlord or SCOTUS? Oops, looks like the Minutemen shouldn't of brought their Muskets to Concord because they stepped outside their domicile with their arm. The Founding Fathers obviously by their writings did not put limitations on where arms should be. If we are limited to just inside the home, then the anti-gunners are right, it is a hollow victory.

BigDogatPlay
08-28-2011, 8:02 AM
Reasonably well balanced read, and mildly refreshing considering the source.

That said, they are top lining the Brady baloney concerning the right being limited to the home. That's where their minds are.

Maestro Pistolero
08-28-2011, 8:07 AM
"This is serious business. We do not wish to be even minutely responsible for some unspeakably tragic act of mayhem because in the peace of our judicial chambers we miscalculated as to 2nd Amendment rights." - Judge Wilkinson

OK, but it should be obvious to anyone with a pulse that the very unpeakable tragic act of mayhem that this judge so wishes to avoid is exponentially more likely to occur as a result of a criminal attack than because some law abiding person was armed.

So when does the right of the law abiding person get weighed into the mix? It is given no weight whatsoever in the lower courts.

All this fretting about causing mayhem that is happening all around us everyday, and the judge would tie our hands to prevent it. At what point are future judges required to check their common sense at the chamber door?
And another:
I appreciate this balanced, informative article from the LA Times.
Where this is all going is that in approxmately two years, everyone who is not a prohibited person will be able to carry a firearm in public in some manner that's regulated by their particular state. (Not-prohibited means not a felon or domestic abuser, not under a restraining order, or not dishonorably discharged from the military)

Soon, the few hold-out states will need to decide HOW they wish their citizens to carry. States will be able to specify how, BUT NOT WHETHER a law-abiding person may carry for self defense. They can regulate 'carry', as long as the regulations or licenses are not onerously expensive or otherwise unneccessariy difficult to acquire.

States may choose loaded-open-carry, concealed-carry, or both. States that allow both may be given more latitude as to time, place, and manner restrictions. In other words, if concealed carry is not prohibited in a park, for example, then an open carry restriction might pass constitutional muster. And so on.

Fortunately, this will not be a blind experiment in public safety. No less than 34 states have mandatory issue of licenses to carry for law-abiding citizens. The rate of misuse of firearms by this group of people is so low, that if it could be superimposed on the entire rest of the country, the US would be one of the safest places on the planet.

The Shadow
08-28-2011, 8:17 AM
Wow, that was a remarkably balanced piece. One quote from the Brady Bunch and a firearms attorney got the last word. Talk about winning! This is the first time I've seen something that was neutral to positive tending from the LA Times that wasn't an opinion piece.

Ryan

I think I disagree with you and here's why. David Savage wrote:

"But to the dismay of gun rights advocates, judges in recent months have read those decisions narrowly and rejected claims from those who said they had a constitutional right to carry a loaded gun on their person or in their car. Instead, these judges from California to Maryland have said the "core right" to a gun is limited to the home."

The way I'm reading the sentence in bold is that, judges nationwide agree that the second amendment limits the right to possess a gun in the home. That's not correct and is misleading if not an outright lie. It would have been better to say that judges in California and Maryland have said the "core right" to a gun is limited to the home. But I have the impression that Savage wants the reader to believe that states that allow people to carry guns in public are few and an anomaly. While Savage does say:

"Now, 40 states grant concealed-carry permits to qualified gun owners."

Savage doesn't say that those states are "Shall Issue" states, and so his statement is a half truth designed to make the layman believe that those 40 states are still strictly regulating who can and can't carry a firearm in public.

In my opinion, there's nothing fair or balanced about the article, which is typical for the L.A. Times.

Rossi357
08-28-2011, 8:26 AM
"This is serious business. We do not wish to be even minutely responsible for some unspeakably tragic act of mayhem because in the peace of our judicial chambers we miscalculated as to 2nd Amendment rights."

Some unspeakable and MYTHICAL act of mayhem that isn't happening by law abiding citizens carrying outside the home.

Did I forget to mention the real acts of mayhem that are happening because law abiding citizens can't carry outside the home?

Your Honor, get your head out of your peaceful chambers (6 o'clock) and look around.

The 2nd amendment is hereby suspended because of something that might happen.

All together, now.....group facepalm.

Tarn_Helm
08-28-2011, 9:01 AM
Revisiting the 2nd Amendment's right to bear arms

So far the courts have limited guns mostly to the home. But the National Rifle Assn. is asking the Supreme Court to clarify that the right extends further.

By David G. Savage, Washington Bureau August 27, 2011, 5:42 p.m.

Reporting from Washington— The 2nd Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms" is proving to be a right to keep a gun at home, but so far not a right to bear a loaded firearm in public.

The Supreme Court breathed new life into the amendment when it struck down strict handgun bans in Washington and Chicago and spoke of the "inherent right of self-defense."

See below for the complete article.....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-guns-20110827,0,4745157.story

The article was biased, but less atrociously so than usual.

Actually, my strongest quibble is with the lawyer Antigone Peyton, who is representing Sean Masciandaro.

She says, according to the article, her client, "like millions of law-abiding gun owners, should be told the scope of his right to keep and bear arms in case of confrontation."

(Bold and italic emphasis added by me.)

Our whole country in the present age has been brainwashed into thinking that we must await the mysterious pronouncement of a magical priesthood of occult experts who tell us the plain meaning of common, everyday language.

This is not how we should think of the Supreme Court judges at all, not what we should let them do with our constitution, and not how we should live--as little children who don't know what words mean.

We should be interpreting the constitution for ourselves, as it was intended.

"St. George Tucker (July 10, 1752 – November 10, 1827)," according to Wikipedia, "was a lawyer, professor of law at the College of William and Mary, and judge of Virginia's highest court. In 1813, upon the nomination of President James Madison, he became the United States district judge for Virginia."

And he wrote one of the most authoritative textbooks on the U.S. Constitution:

Blackstone's Commentaries: with notes of reference, to the constitution and laws, of the federal government of the United States; and of the commonwealth of Virginia. In five volumes. With an appendix to each volume, containing short tracts upon such subjects as appeared necessary to form a connected view of the laws of Virginia, as a member of the federal union. (http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb-0000.htm)

In this work, Tucker writes the following: "A bill of rights may be considered, not only as intended to give law, and assign limits to a government about to be established, but as giving information to the people. By reducing speculative truths to fundamental laws, every man of the meanest capacity and understanding may learn his own rights, and know when they are violated . . . ."

The constitution was never meant to be a document which requires some secret squirrel priesthood to tell us what the words "keep" and "bear" mean.

Gun owners should NOT be "told the scope of their rights," as Peyton asserts.

We should be boisterously telling our elected officials the scope of our rights on a regular basis and constantly demanding that those officials obey what we tell them.

See Stephen P. Halbrook's (http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/) article on this topic, "St. George Tucker's Second Amendment: Deconstructing 'The True Palladium of Liberty' (http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8710&context=expresso)."
:chris:

glockman19
08-28-2011, 9:15 AM
Good read...the sooner the SCOTUS hears this the better.

socal2310
08-28-2011, 10:02 AM
Shadow, perhaps you are right. On the other hand this is such a departure from their typical slam on gun owners, that I count it as a win. This is merely the least biased piece that has been published by them.

press1280
08-28-2011, 10:18 AM
Decent article, however, the media at large still doesn't get that there is concealed carry, and open carry. They just seem to think all guns must be carried concealed, and always throw out the Scalia quote without explaining the context of it(CC can be restricted if LOC is not).

Fastattack
08-28-2011, 10:33 AM
Re: LA Times ... talked with a guy offering subscriptions at the Antelope Valley Fair last night. He was pushing the value of coupons. I told him I wouldn't think of subscribing because of their left-wing nut case writers and op-ed writers. Oh, he said. The Times was sold and is much better now. You can save so much money with coupons! Oh, I said, see you later.

OleCuss
08-28-2011, 11:09 AM
More balanced than one might ordinarily expect.

But without even indirect mention of Ezell or Chester I'd still call it pretty biased. They seemed to try to leave the idea that the courts are pretty much unanimous that the RKBA is limited to the home.

Fastattack
08-28-2011, 11:52 AM
But without even indirect mention of Ezell or Chester I'd still call it pretty biased. They seemed to try to leave the idea that the courts are pretty much unanimous that the RKBA is limited to the home.
Yeah, that's what I basically got out of it too. Well said.

GOEX FFF
08-28-2011, 12:32 PM
I don't know why this is so hard to get -

No other rights in the Bill of Rights, limit those rights to inside the home only.
Religion, free speech, right to a speedy trial..etc... you name it. Imagine if ALL of our rights we have had to be done inside the home ONLY.
Under the ninteeth amendment, women can vote, but what if they'd have to do it only from their house. :rolleyes:
We'd kiss off what we know as America. The 2A is NO different than the rest.

They know what the correct answer is though, but they're just too foolhardy to admit it. Anti's always call for "licensing of gun owners",
But when the law abiding actually WANT to apply for a license to carry and go through the requirments, thats STILL not good enough.

Rossi357
08-28-2011, 12:45 PM
Someone please explain to me how "most notably in the home" got changed to "only in the home" :confused:

dantodd
08-28-2011, 12:49 PM
Someone please explain to me how "most notably in the home" got changed to "only in the home" :confused:

It is interpreted that way most notably by judges who are personally opposed to firearm ownership,

Maestro Pistolero
08-28-2011, 12:54 PM
Someone please explain to me how "most notably in the home" got changed to "only in the home" :confused:

The same way separation of church and state plus free speech somehow equal "voluntary prayer in school is prohibited."

Same way the first amendment somehow means the mention of, or an image depicting God in a public building is prohibited.

That tees me off, and I am a non-theistic Buddhist with a libertarian bent. Turning an amendment designed to protect a right into a prohibition is antithetical to the intent of the document, and grotesque in my opinion.

choprzrul
08-28-2011, 12:58 PM
**RANT ON**

Full of Fail:

The Supreme Court breathed new life into the amendment when it struck down strict handgun bans in Washington and Chicago and spoke of the "inherent right of self-defense."

I was born with certain natural and inalienable rights. The framers put the Bill of Rights in place to STOP THE INTRUSION UPON THOSE RIGHTS BY THE GOVERNMENT.

The Supreme Court isn't breathing life into anything. They are b***h slapping the government et al for overstepping their authority into my 2A civil rights. I restrain myself, but I would seriously like to kick every government flunky square in the nootz for intruding upon my civil rights. Especially those locally elected officials that insist upon perpetuating these civil rights violations despite their oath of office & swearing to uphold the constitution.

**RANT OFF**

....surprised to see this from the LAT. Author needs to get an eye full of Gura & Kilmer's latest appeal brief....

.

DigitalAmmunition
08-28-2011, 3:44 PM
**RANT ON**

Full of Fail:



I was born with certain natural and inalienable rights. The framers put the Bill of Rights in place to STOP THE INTRUSION UPON THOSE RIGHTS BY THE GOVERNMENT.

The Supreme Court isn't breathing life into anything. They are b***h slapping the government et al for overstepping their authority into my 2A civil rights. I restrain myself, but I would seriously like to kick every government flunky square in the nootz for intruding upon my civil rights. Especially those locally elected officials that insist upon perpetuating these civil rights violations despite their oath of office & swearing to uphold the constitution.

**RANT OFF**

....surprised to see this from the LAT. Author needs to get an eye full of Gura & Kilmer's latest appeal brief....

.

+1, Well said!

It's not the court that's breathing life into anything that we the people didn't already have the right to. What blows me away are some of the idiotic comments in the comment section of the article. It's scary to think people that don't understand some basic knowledge of civics and first principles are so emotionally charged on this issue as to yell beyond reason against 2A rights.

MatrixCPA
08-28-2011, 4:10 PM
It's scary to think people that don't understand some basic knowledge of civics and first principles are so emotionally charged on this issue as to yell beyond reason against 2A rights.

It blows me away sometimes. I brought up 2A at work and I actually had someone I consider to be very professional and educated say, "The second amendment was written when the country was young and wild. The need for it no longer exists. Only the military and police should have guns." :eek:

I made some comments about London and Norway and he thought I was completely off-base. I tried to debate it with him but his only argument is that most people are stupid and careless and giving them guns is a recipe for disaster. :facepalm::banghead::facepalm::banghead::facepalm:

dantodd
08-28-2011, 4:36 PM
I tried to debate it with him but his only argument is that most people are stupid and careless and giving them guns is a recipe for disaster. :facepalm::banghead::facepalm::banghead::facepalm:

I must admit there are days when I think he's half right.

MatrixCPA
08-28-2011, 4:58 PM
I must admit there are days when I think he's half right.

Oh, I understand completely. What keeps me from believing it 100% is that we let people drive after short written and behind-the-wheel tests and only revoke that privilege after they darn near (or do) kill someone. The presumption is people will drive responsibly.

On the other side, so many people seem to believe that putting a gun in someone's hand instantly turns them into some kind of demon--there's no presumption of responsibility. When the rare case of some mass-shooting takes place (because the cops were only 5 minutes away), it's a huge media event with commentary for days about the need to rid the world of guns. When the rare case of some drunk driver killing a bus/van full of kids takes place, they don't talk for one minute about getting rid of cars.

It's a matter of culture. If people were comfortable with guns and saw them as a matter of personal responsibility, it would be fine. There are plenty of examples, even within this country, where that is the case. Comfort only comes from experience and exposure. People were once terrified of electricity and were fearful of touching light switches and changing light bulbs. Electricity can be dangerous to be sure, but nobody worries about it much now.

OleCuss
08-28-2011, 5:50 PM
It is interpreted that way most notably by judges who are personally opposed to firearm ownership,

You're more knowledgeable than I on this subject so I'll expect to be corrected - and be happy for the correction.

I've got the impression that the lower courts follow an accepted principle in law which pretty much dictates that they should interpret higher court rulings in a manner consistent with those rulings - but in such a way as to minimize the damage to existing laws.

That being the case, it is reasonable to expect district courts and below to interpret Heller and McDonald in a relatively narrow and restrictive manner (not to our immediate benefit).

They get to do this because the questions asked of SCOTUS were narrow and thus the explicit rulings were relatively narrow.

The advantage is that with so many lower courts ruling in a manner inconsistent with the spirit of the Heller and McDonald rulings one can expect SCOTUS to take some relevant cases and explicitly expand the understanding of the core of the RKBA.

If the lower courts were nearly universally accepting what I understand to be the core of the RKBA then SCOTUS would not be compelled to make the extent of the core right explicit and this would mean that our core right would be more vulnerable to ridiculous restrictions in the future.

So the lower court "intransigence" is to our benefit if (as I believe it will) it results in a SCOTUS ruling on the core right which is of reasonable dimensions and we get to have Stare Decisis on our side in the future.

So I now almost celebrate when a lower court makes a truly asinine 2A ruling - I figure that brings us just that much closer to our current SCOTUS taking a case which will further secure our rights.

voiceofreason
08-28-2011, 6:58 PM
There were 0 comments the first time I opened the link.

There were 296 the second time.

spiderpigs
08-28-2011, 7:07 PM
my "home" is the USA. Of course my right to bear arms doesnt extend into Canada ;)

nicki
08-28-2011, 7:48 PM
Let's face it, regardless of if we got victories at the district levels, the other side would have appealed.

Both the Heller and MacDonald cases were written in such a way to encourage more lawsuits.

If the US Supreme Court felt the second amendment only applied in the home, the "Heller case" would have been written much shorter and the same with "MacDonald".

The "Ward case" is interesting in that the Maryland Supreme Court effectively called out Justice Scalia. Justice Scalia is one guy you don't call out.

The other side is in for a nasty surprise, I think the Supreme court will take at least one carry case this session and make a ruling that the other side will claim that blood will flow on the streets.

Nicki

The Shadow
08-28-2011, 8:27 PM
The other side is in for a nasty surprise, I think the Supreme court will take at least one carry case this session and make a ruling that the other side will claim that blood will flow on the streets.

Nicki

Oh that tired old cliche again ? :sleeping: :yawn:

press1280
08-29-2011, 12:52 AM
Oh that tired old cliche again ? :sleeping: :yawn:

Yep, you'd think they'd get rid of it after 40 plus states have gone shall-issue or constitutional carry. Maybe the over the top "blood in the streets" will be replaced by the cozier "simple arguments turn into gunfights" or "vigilantiism will be widespread". Same thing though-"Wild West".

The "Ward case" is interesting in that the Maryland Supreme Court effectively called out Justice Scalia. Justice Scalia is one guy you don't call out.
Think you mean Williams. But remember the Masciandaro case also called out SCOTUS, maybe not quite as bluntly as MD did.

Kharn
08-29-2011, 1:49 AM
The "Ward case" is interesting in that the Maryland Supreme Court effectively called out Justice Scalia. Justice Scalia is one guy you don't call out.I think you mean Williams.

m03
08-29-2011, 6:56 AM
I tried to debate it with him but his only argument is that most people are stupid and careless and giving them guns is a recipe for disaster. :facepalm::banghead::facepalm::banghead::facepalm:

We could replace "guns" in that sentence with a number of other things which the person who made the statement would not have considered...

"alcohol"
"knives"
"table saws"
"cars"
"cleaning products"
"prescription drugs"
"computers"
"the permission to breed"

I'd rather give them guns than a couple of the items on the above list ;)

scarville
08-29-2011, 7:19 AM
The other side is in for a nasty surprise, I think the Supreme court will take at least one carry case this session and make a ruling that the other side will claim that blood will flow on the streets.
As long as it is the blood of criminals. I don't care. OTOH, that may be what is upsetting the antis...

I don't expect to see nationwide Constitutional Carry anytime soon. The anal retentive, there-oughta-be-a-law attitude is too deeply embedded in what passes for thinking these days to be overcome quickly. Nevertheless, it is way past time the statists learned that the Constituion is not a country club charter and the protections it offers are not restricted to the wealthy and influential.

Wherryj
08-29-2011, 7:44 AM
How did I miss the news about Michel & Associates selling their practice to the NRA? I an even subscribed to their newsletter and didn't get the memo.

"That's the cutting-edge issue: whether the 2nd Amendment applies outside the home," said Chuck Michel, an NRA lawyer in Long Beach who has appealed the question to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

I was under the impression that they were still an independent law firm. Go figure...

Norsemen308
08-29-2011, 8:11 AM
I am speechless.... not because of the article, but the comments section... I just cant grasp the reasoning of a certain poster, he says We do not have a right to own guns, that we shouldnt have them. I cant even begin to fathom this statement.... I just dont understand people who would give it all up, here we dont need these... protect us... It gives me the chills....

But I loved how the Author brought up that the Obama Administration and its lawyers are going to fight tooth and nail to never let it get to SCOTUS... never thought about that, or the ability for people to basically lobbie our Supreme Court... very sad times when the law can be bought...

but then I ask myself, what if it did get into SCOTUS, and they butchered the hell out of it, and limited our rights even further... that scares me the most... our court always goes 5/4 it would only take ONE to have a momentary lapse of judgment and we are SOL.

Uxi
08-29-2011, 9:52 AM
It blows me away sometimes. I brought up 2A at work and I actually had someone I consider to be very professional and educated say, "The second amendment was written when the country was young and wild. The need for it no longer exists. Only the military and police should have guns." :eek:


Proper response is that the Constitution was also written to account for changes in time by properly ratified Amendment and than until that until that's done.


I made some comments about London and Norway and he thought I was completely off-base. I tried to debate it with him but his only argument is that most people are stupid and careless and giving them guns is a recipe for disaster. :facepalm::banghead::facepalm::banghead::facepalm:

You can then throw out a remark about the inspiration and how knights had the right to bear arms and the power to mete justice but that the ordinary peasant had neither and that what he's really talking about is aristocracy.

FullMetalJacket
08-29-2011, 10:11 AM
Does the Second Amendment apply outside the home?

I certainly do not see the words "exclusively in the home" in the text of the Amendment, and it's hard to see how the "bear" portion would make any sense if it did not extend into public...

Uxi
08-29-2011, 10:59 AM
Does the Second Amendment apply outside the home?

I certainly do not see the words "exclusively in the home" in the text of the Amendment, and it's hard to see how the "bear" portion would make any sense if it did not extend into public...

Agreed. Heller addressed keep and didn't really touch on bear. Hopefully we'll get that case soon and get vague victim disarmament zones tossed, or at the very least confined to their actual property instead of intruding onto public space. Ideally, we'd get explicit recognition of Vermont and Arizona style Constitutional-carry or at the very least LOC.

donw
08-29-2011, 11:23 AM
Does the Second Amendment apply outside the home?

I certainly do not see the words "exclusively in the home" in the text of the Amendment, and it's hard to see how the "bear" portion would make any sense if it did not extend into public...


+1

however...at the time of the penning of the constitution, professional armies were threatening the, then, colonies and ravaging Europe so the amendment was to mean that the average person could keep a firearm to protect himself, family and property from that or any other threat, as well as be called to service in a "well regulated militia"...and...to protect oneself, family, property against a tyrannical government.

i, for one, do NOT believe it was meant for "Inside the home only"

there are three portions to the law:

the LETTER of the law
the INTENT of the law
the SPIRIT of the law

the LETTERING of the 2A is not as clear (but it still very clear about the keeping and bearing of arms) as the INTENT and SPIRIT of the 2A and when one explores the historical aspect, that INTENT and SPIRIT become VERY clear; our founding forefathers could not envision how complex and difficult interpreting the constitution would become 235 years down the road from the day it was ratified...heck...we have a president that could not define oral sex as being sex, let alone interpret the constitution...

it's a mystery, to me, why so many so-called "Learned" persons are unable to render the true meaning of the 2A. :(

mag360
08-29-2011, 11:42 AM
one of us must have posted the latest comment on there. i thumbsed it up

http://discussions.latimes.com/20/lanews/la-na-court-guns-20110827/10

MatrixCPA
08-29-2011, 11:49 AM
one of us must have posted the latest comment on there. i thumbsed it up

http://discussions.latimes.com/20/lanews/la-na-court-guns-20110827/10

same

radioman
08-29-2011, 12:27 PM
I read most of the posts, what get me is all the name calling. Why is it the anti's feel that the only way to make a point is to call names, or refer to someones small penis, what is that? someone tell then, that the bigger the penis the less blood the brain has to work with. But if they did stick to the facts there would no debate.

Kharn
08-29-2011, 1:04 PM
How did I miss the news about Michel & Associates selling their practice to the NRA? I an even subscribed to their newsletter and didn't get the memo.

"That's the cutting-edge issue: whether the 2nd Amendment applies outside the home," said Chuck Michel, an NRA lawyer in Long Beach who has appealed the question to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

I was under the impression that they were still an independent law firm. Go figure...They also identify Stephen Halbrook as an NRA lawyer. While he has worked for the NRA in the past, he is not their employee, nor is the NRA involved in Williams. I think they're making some pretty big assumptions.

HowardW56
08-29-2011, 6:22 PM
There are 537 comments on the article....

dantodd
08-29-2011, 7:12 PM
They also identify Stephen Halbrook as an NRA lawyer. While he has worked for the NRA in the past, he is not their employee, nor is the NRA involved in Williams. I think they're making some pretty big assumptions.

I think you are looking for bias where it isn't here. That is common enough wording and as retained counsel is accurate.

Spirit 1
08-29-2011, 8:02 PM
I read most of the posts, what get me is all the name calling. Why is it the anti's feel that the only way to make a point is to call names...

Actually, that's SOP taught to all leftist commies. It's similar to how they lie straight faced and call themselves Socialists instead of Communists, and Progressives or Liberals instead of Communists.

Their debating or subterfuge tactics were explained to me by the word SIN:

Shifting the subject
Ignoring the facts
Name calling

These are their standard methods of operation, intended to derail or win any argument. As soon as their lips start moving or their keyboard starts clattering it pours out of their dysfunctional grey matter turned red. To them, Truth is entirely irrelevant...

Maestro Pistolero
08-29-2011, 8:36 PM
I've been posting my ***** off over there. Here's the latest:

christopherjayhoffman at 9:26 PM August 29, 2011

As always, felons, domestic abusers, mentally ill, drug addicts, and those dishonorably discharged from the military need not apply. But, within 2-3 years, as the avalanche of second amendment cases make their way through the courts, anyone not prohibited from owning a firearm will have a legal path to carry it.

Soon, states will have to choose how they wish to allow the law abiding citizens to carry. Concealed, openly, and with, or without a license. State governments will be able to regulate how, but not whether a lawful citizen may carry.

The days of states denying the right of good citizens to carry a functional firearm for the purpose of lawful self defense or defense of another are coming to an end.


christopherjayhoffman at 9:26 PM August 29, 2011
This article mirrors lower court decisions that intentionally conflate the scope of the Heller vs DC case with the scope of the right itself. The DC handgun ban was struck down by the Supreme Court. The case demanded only that the plaintiff to be able to carry in the home. Since that was the only prayer for relief, that's all the court granted.

But in that case, they identified a fundamental right to carry a functional firearm for immediate use for self-defense in case of confrontation. The court found that the first (militia) clause of the amendment merely announced a purpose, and was in no way a limitation on the right of the people.

So unless the second amendment was intended to protect only indoor militias, the court will soon further clarify that the right extends outside of the home.

The McDonald vs Chicago case struck their similar handgun ban and applied the Heller decision and the second amendment to the states through the process of incorporation. That means licenses to carry firearms are coming to your state soon, even if you live in NJ, IL, NY, NYC, HI, or MD.

christopherjayhoffman at 8:34 PM August 29, 2011
There can be no right more fundamental than the one right that, if taken away, denies one access to every other right guaranteed us by the constitution.

Dead people lose everything, and have a right to nothing. No right is more essential than the right to one's own life and the right to defend it from unlawful attack.

To deny this is to ignore two qualities that have been present in the human race for millenia: That most humans are naturally compassionate and incapable of harming another without cause. And that there will always be a small percentage of humans who will stop at nothing to get what they want.

I place my faith in the greater group. Armed, trained, law abiding citizens are a force for good and the only thing standing between a criminal attack and a victim ubder all but the most unusual circumstances.

The police will be the last to arrive. They will take a report. They will call an ambulance or a coroner. There may be an investigation, maybe a trial and a conviction. But your life or the life of a loved one will be change or lost forever.

And zeitgeist, but for your insipid, utopically narrow understanding of the range of human behavior, both good and bad, could prevent it lawfully. You will choose impotence over courage. What a hideous erosion of the human spirit you put forth, and presume to wear it as some badge of honor and morality. Disgusting.(zeitgeist is a particularly foamy-mouthed anti)