This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1371695
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1371695
Wow, I’m totally unsure as to how this might turn out.
/s
6 Likes
Glockz4All.
7 Likes
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. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. 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. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). 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.
17 Likes
All that aside, the case they took up if an example of the Left getting a bit too greedy, denying licenses to some rather sympathetic plaintiffs who would have no problem getting a concealed carry permit in many other States.
If the Left insists on passing stupid laws and restrictions and opens up the opportunity, like they did here, for the Supremes to weigh in on it with a decision that has much broader impact, that’s really on them.
Ah, the old race to the bottom.
11 Likes
I am just glad that SCOTUS isn’t swayed by political considerations!
/s
8 Likes
All part of the long term marketing plan of Big Gun.
Let’s face it, liberals have more money, and there are more of them.
Only civil war can maintain their stock prices over the next quarter.
1 Like
So in a Stand Your Ground state, it appears to follow that anyone could pose a deadly threat at any moment, because if restrictions on carry are lifted it would be reasonable to assume that everyone is carrying. So any kind of threatening move/gesture/expression should be sufficient to trigger fear for your life.
Pre-emptive self-defense. Aka the Cheney Doctrine.
9 Likes
Pretty much. Same thing like Biden referencing 100-round drums in his speech regarding “high-capacity magazines”. Quite disingenuous when the proposals actually under consideration generally target anything over 10 rounds as high-capacity.
If you proposed killing the 100-round drums, probably wouldn’t find an actual gun owner against that, nobody uses things like that in normal practice, way too heavy, makes shooting quite inaccurate.
But when you’re actually targeting basic 17-round Glock magazines or the standard 30-round AR-15 magazine, that’s a different debate. And largely a joke, because reloading with a new clip can be done in a second, so you’re really not gaining real benefits from it, just cosmetic security theater.
1 Like
It takes only 1 round to kill me.
5 Likes
The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say a damn thing about the number of rounds a magazine can hold. It’s purely a matter of legislative prerogative. As is the carrying of concealed weapons. Though quite obviously, Clarence Thomas is going to change that.
4 Likes
Just pointing out how we open the window for Clarence to play by overreaching.
Kavanaugh and Barrett have young kids so there is a chance. Alito and Thomas are hopeless. Don’t be fooled into thinking that this has anything to do the law. In big cases it’s all personal.
2 Likes
Let us start with the text of the 2nd Amendment.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Notice how “REGULATED” is upfront. That is the amendment demands regulation.
Also of note is “free state”. This refers to the fear that the federal Government would impose its tyranny on the states. That is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to allow the states to have their own militias to resist the federal Government. This is also clear from the record of its authorship and adoption.
If you ever read anything about the Civil War, you will notice references like the 7th Wisconsin or the 12th Alabama. That is because the 2nd amendment was also for the states to provide to the federal army as needed. The Civil War was in fact partially caused by this as states had their own militias independent of the Federal Government and so the practice went out of style after the Civil War.
I say all this to make the point that any historical reading of the 2nd Amendment does not provide an unregulated right to an individual to bear arms. Rather, the whole historical purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to allow the states to have militias to protect them from the Federal Government and also to provide to the Federal government and it all went out of style with the Civil War.
2 Likes
What you’re missing in there is that, if there is no individual right, then the State won’t have a pool of people with guns to raise their militia.
Fighting to free themselves from an occupying standing army, the Founders were quite uncomfortable with having a standing army themselves.
Another element, originally, was to give the southern states a means to control their slave populations without federal (read anti-slavery) interference.
1 Like
There is no overreaching involved in that case. The state legislature has quite reasonably decided that the state should not issue a concealed carry license unless the applicant identifies a specific threat to their safety. The alternative to that policy is concealed carry on demand, which is basically just a waystation to gun culture’s masturbatory fantasy shoot-em-up utopia.
The fault lies not in the law. The fault lies with a Supreme Court majority that aches to release all constraint on packing heat.
10 Likes
Whoa there, fella!
The “free state” in question is the national state—not individual states.
The US had no standing army when the amendment was written, and the “well-regulated militia” was the backstop in case the country needed an army quickly.
It never, ever had anything to do with what you claim.
8 Likes
And then denied it to a businessowner who handled large amounts of cash in a higher-crime area.
They picked some solid plaintiffs for this case.
If they didn’t meet the bar, it’s arguable if anyone could. Which gives the Supremes all the ammo they need.
Self-own by the liberals.