| Author |
|
Rebecca Jansen
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 February 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 4495
|
| Posted: 24 June 2022 at 2:52am | IP Logged | 1
|
post reply
|
|
Guns have sure changed a lot just over the past hundred odd years! They had gun control in many 'wild west' towns when it was six shooters, not glock model 20s.
I didn't click that link, reading that it was someplace with "angry red head" in the name put me off... then again, with places with buzz, blaze, punchbowl or even deviant in their title being so common maybe I shouldn't always judge on that basis. I avoided that deviant art site for ages before I finally saw that it had a lot of pretty cool art (and alternate Doctor Who DVD sleeves)!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 35722
|
| Posted: 24 June 2022 at 7:43am | IP Logged | 2
|
post reply
|
|
Peter Martin wrote:
| The reason I feel this does have a bearing on open carry is because of the language of the majority opinion, drafted by Justice Thomas. He wrote, "The government must affirmatively prove its firearm regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to bear arms" and that "A State may not prevent law-abiding citizens from publicly carrying handguns because they have not demonstrated a special need for self-defense."
Now this sounds an awful lot to me like a hurdle is being raised for the government when it comes to gun regulation in any regard. His words did not talk specifically about concealed weapons. He talked about a constitutional right to carry a handgun without having to show any need for self-defense.
Maybe he was just sloppy and meant to put in concealed weapons? What do you think? |
|
|
He was sloppy but not, as I think you assume, accidentally or without malice. Over 31 years on the court informs us that he knows exactly what he's doing. That said? Thomas framed his words in such a way that, far from being conclusive and firm, opens the door for much dissent and legal action.
Read his opinion in full if you haven't. It's terrible. Kavanaugh and Roberts had to offer concurring opinions that modified what Thomas wrote in order to shore up his bullshit claims and even then this decision is ripe for loopholes and future litigation.
For me, personally, I'm not really concerned that we in America are now going to be Tombstone. I'm more worried about a conservative court applying "originalist" logic to rule on a whole bunch of laws that ultimately weaken or eliminate, for example, abortion rights, church v state, voting rights, gun restrictions and (as is here) open carry laws as well as a whole host of previously assumed to be "settled law" because....well...they can. When you've got the Texas GOP wanting to toss the 1965 Voting Rights Act, everything is in play.
That, to me, is frightening.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132234
|
| Posted: 24 June 2022 at 12:56pm | IP Logged | 3
|
post reply
|
|
…Tombstone…••• Let’s remember that, at least under Virgil Earp, Tombstone did not permit anyone to carry guns within town limits. The infamous gunfight down the street from the OK Corral began in part because the Clanton gang refused to surrender their weapons.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Rebecca Jansen
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 February 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 4495
|
| Posted: 24 June 2022 at 4:51pm | IP Logged | 4
|
post reply
|
|
Those Earps were un-American in violating the sacred second amendment right! At least as far as some simplistic modern interpreters read it. Total freedom and liberty, no rules, anarchy... these are opposites of civilization. Hard to explain to people burning copies of 'It Takes A Village' I expect. Why not say traffic lights are a form of tyranny? In fact someone just got off from a ticket for running a red light by telling the judge it was late at night with no other traffic visible. We have to relearn basics all the time about why some precedents can eventually be disastrous, like everyone being armed to the teeth based on personal want or fear might be quite dangerous and anti-social.
Edited by Rebecca Jansen on 24 June 2022 at 4:51pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132234
|
| Posted: 24 June 2022 at 6:47pm | IP Logged | 5
|
post reply
|
|
Almost a Good IdeaThe gun nuts like to skip the “well regulated militia” clause in the Second Amendment, or at best claim any bunch of beer guzzling weekend warriors constitutes a “militia” (regulations be damned). Unfortunately, the author of this piece misses an important part of the Founding Fathers phrasing. The Second Amendment doesn’t mean an individual should belong to a militia before being allowed to own guns. It means individuals should own guns so that they will be ready to serve in times of need. Minute Men mentality. And long since out of date.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 30884
|
| Posted: 24 June 2022 at 9:19pm | IP Logged | 6
|
post reply
|
|
Since the Roe v. Wade was an egregious error because abortion was never
mentioned in the constitution, that means assault rifles and hell, anything
more sophisticated than a musket should be outlawed, right?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
James Woodcock
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 September 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7604
|
| Posted: 25 June 2022 at 5:52am | IP Logged | 7
|
post reply
|
|
Well regulated
This surely implies the regulations fit the requirements of the day.
So, with 70% of homicides being caused by guns, over 200 mass shootings
just this year, guns being the highest use of suicide/accidental deaths,
would these stars not point to a lack of ‘well’ regulated?
If fact, would they not point to a decidedly ‘unwell’ regulated situation?
Not sure how this is missed by so many.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 35722
|
| Posted: 25 June 2022 at 7:28am | IP Logged | 8
|
post reply
|
|
John Byrne wrote:
| Let’s remember that, at least under Virgil Earp, Tombstone did not permit anyone to carry guns within town limits. The infamous gunfight down the street from the OK Corral began in part because the Clanton gang refused to surrender their weapons. |
|
|
Agreed. I was using Tombstone as a catch-all for Western towns, cities and the like that not only condoned but encouraged the use of personal weapons to deal with their problems. That Tombstone was unique in its refusal to bear arms within the city, however, is notable particularly in this day and age as well as with regard to the Supreme Court determination this week.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14812
|
| Posted: 25 June 2022 at 7:45am | IP Logged | 9
|
post reply
|
|
Discussion of what a well-regulated militia entails is moot, because the Supreme Court ruled, in DC v. Heller, that gun ownership is an individual right independent of service in a militia. That's not going to be overturned by this current court.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 12429
|
| Posted: 26 June 2022 at 1:50pm | IP Logged | 10
|
post reply
|
|
Heller also held the following:
QUOTE:
| Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. [cites omitted.] For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. [cites omitted.] Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, 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. We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” [cites omitted.] |
|
|
It's hard if not impossible to imagine that the current pro-individual gun right Justices would recognize or if so to an appreciable degree any of these limitations.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132234
|
| Posted: 26 June 2022 at 2:49pm | IP Logged | 11
|
post reply
|
|
The Second Amendment has suffered the kind of irrationally broadened interpretation as the First. When the Founding Fathers wrote of “freedom of the press” they meant a literal printing press, not any form of “publication” they could not foresee. They did not intend to protect song lyrics that endorse rape. Similarly, their protection of the “right to bear arms” referred to what they knew and understood at the time, not weapons that could allow an individual to slaughter dozens of people at a time. (We can safely assume the Minute Men would have been delighted to be given assault rifles, outmatched as they were by British armament, but they could not even imagine such things.)
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 12429
|
| Posted: 26 June 2022 at 2:57pm | IP Logged | 12
|
post reply
|
|
There's a line from the movie HANNAH AND HER SISTERS that, mutatis mutandis, seem a propos here:
If the Founders came back and saw what's going on in their name, they'd never stop throwing up.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
