U.S. Supreme Court as it usta be

Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry, writes:

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States published its first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment written by the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia – District of Columbia v. Heller. In a 5-4 decision, the High Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right of the individual to use arms for self-defense, self-defense being the central component of the Second Amendment right . . .

But the majority of the Court also held that the right is not unlimited. The Court said that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

The first limitation the Court placed on the Second Amendment right is that the right does not extend to unlawful or unjustifiable purposes. For example, there is no Second Amendment right to commit armed robbery.

The second limitation the Court placed on the Second Amendment right is the carrying of weapons concealed in public. There is no right to carry a weapon concealed in public according to the Court with the possible exception of travelers while actually on a journey.

Another limitation the Court placed on the Second Amendment is that there are some weapons which fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment.

We know that the Second Amendment protects handguns, rifles and shotguns but the Court did not say whether or not that protection extends to machine-guns or even hand-held rocket launchers which can bring down an aircraft.

We know this because the author of the Heller decision (Justice Scalia) said so in an interview several years after his decision was published. We know from the Heller decision that the Second Amendment does not protect “dangerous and unusual weapons” but what we don’t know from the Heller decision is whether or not machine-guns and hand-held rocket launchers are “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

We do know that Justices Scalia and Thomas believed that semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 are protected by the Second Amendment. They said so in a dissent to the denial of a cert petition in a case which sought to overturn a ban on these firearms in Highland Park Illinois.

There were several categories of laws which the Court explicitly said were not affected by the Heller decision: 1) Possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, 2) Laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in what the Court called “sensitive places” such as schools and government buildings and 3) Laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Seven years, seven months and seventeen days after the Heller decision was published, Justice Scalia was at a dinner party the night before he was to go hunting. He said he was not feeling well and excused himself. Late the following morning he was found dead in bed.

So what did the so called gun-rights groups do in the seven years, seven months and seventeen days between the Heller decision being published and the death of Justice Scalia? They chose the path of deception, cunning, guile, conceit and lying. A path which has led the Second Amendment to the precipice of its destruction and a path the so called gun-rights groups and attorneys have no regrets in taking.

The so called gun-rights groups and their lawyers squandered the opportunity to solidify the Second Amendment right in the courts by saying that Justice Scalia and the 5-4 majority in the Heller decision were wrong when the court held that Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment. These groups and their lawyers argued instead that Open Carry can be banned in favor of government-issued permission slips to carry weapons concealed.

They lost every case. They also brought other Federal lawsuits challenging the other “presumptively lawful” prohibitions and restrictions on the Second Amendment. They lost those cases as well.

With each case lost it gave the various Federal Courts of Appeal the opportunity to cut away at the Second Amendment right in decisions which are binding on all lower courts in their district and all state courts in their district.

The Second Amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” The Second Amendment is unique in this regard. All that is required to infringe on the Second Amendment right is to enact a law which encroaches on the Second Amendment right. A law which merely gets close to touching the Second Amendment right is an encroachment and is therefore unconstitutional by the plain text reading of the Second Amendment right.

Some Federal Circuits, like the 2nd and 3rd, have decided that all gun laws are by default constitutional unless the challenged law places what the court deems to be a “substantial burden” on the Second Amendment right and even then a law which substantially burdens the Second Amendment right can still be constitutional if in the eyes of the court the government had a sufficiently good reason to enact the law.

The remaining Federal Circuits have created a two-step test of constitutionality. Step One asks whether or not the challenge laws burdens conduct which falls within the scope of the Second Amendment as it was historically understood and if so, Step Two of the test analyses the severity of the burden of the law on the Second Amendment right with more severe burdens requiring a better reason given by the government for enacting the law.

Not a single court, anywhere, has recognized that the Second Amendment is a right which shall not be infringed.

There have been hundreds of other decisions in cases brought by people, mostly convicted felons, who raised frivolous arguments such as they have a Second Amendment right to bear arms while engaged in criminal activity such as drug dealing. And of course there have been a few cases where people committed to mental institutions claim they have a Second Amendment right to carry firearms.

There are four justices whose inevitable replacements will decide the fate of the Second Amendment for a generation, perhaps forever. 1) Justice Scalia whose death has created a vacancy, 2) Justice Ginsburg whose advanced age and poor health will almost certainly see her seat vacant by the end of the first term of whomever is elected President this November, 3) Justice Kennedy who turns 80 this July and 4) Justice Breyer who turns 78 this August.

Two of these Justices held that the Second Amendment is a fundamental, individual right unconnected with service in a militia (Scalia and Kennedy) and two held that the Second Amendment is not an individual right (Ginsburg and Breyer).

A President can nominate someone to the Supreme Court but it is the Senate which decides whether or not the nominee is confirmed, or rejected, and while the Republicans control the Senate it takes 61 votes to end a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee, assuming that the Senate even holds a confirmation hearing which it is not constitutionally obligated to do.

Republican senators have, in the past, been all too eager to drop their pants and bend over for Democrat nominees whereas Democrat senators fight Republican nominees tooth and nail. The Republicans currently control the Senate by holding a majority (54) of the seats. Six of those “Republicans” have already said that the Senate should hold confirmation hearings without even knowing who Obama’s nominee is going to be!

Republican Senator Grassley, who has been saying that he will not hold confirmation hearings, is a RINO at heart. It is a coin toss as to whether or not Obama successfully appoints a replacement for Justice Scalia.

If Obama does then in the short term the Court becomes 5-4 against the Second Amendment. Whomever is elected President this November will almost certainly fill the inevitable vacancies of Justices Ginsburg, Kennedy and Breyer and if the Republican Senate discovers its backbone, he will also appoint Justice Scalia’s successor.

I reluctantly voted for G.W. Bush and G.H.W. Bush for no other reason than they might appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court.

This election, I will vote for the Republican nominee, whomever it turns out to be, because I know with a Republican President, particularly a first term Republican President who wants to get reelected, there is a real incentive for him to nominate Supreme Court justices who will support the Second Amendment.

Likewise, I will vote for a Republican candidate for US Senate regardless of my personal distaste for whomever that candidate might be because there will be a chance that he will oppose a judicial nominee who is hostile to the Second Amendment.

This is the most important election since 1980. Chose wisely this November.
###

Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
Press@CaliforniaRightToCarry.org
PO Box 1302
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

Recommended For You

198 Responses to The Second Amendment and The Supreme Court – Checkmate in Four Moves?

  1. If you think that the GOP is the same as the Demokkkrats, and will sit out this election rather than push the DNC out of power because the GOP candidate my might offend you… You will have no right to complain when the 2nd amendment is rendered meaningless the Demokkkrats tax and spend this country into a third world nation.

    • I may have to hold my nose, maybe even gag a little, when I cast my vote in November. But it will be a straight Republican vote.
      The alternative is far more sickening.

    • Exactly. I am sick of hearing republicans not vote because the republican candidate was not conservative enough. Though I respect their point of view do they really think a democrat winning would be better? Sometimes you just have to deal with it and vote for the politician that is a compromise.

      • “Sometimes you just have to deal with it and vote for the politician that is a compromise.”

        You are acknowledging that a vote for Republican establishment politicians is the same as voting for the Demoncrat; I agree. There being no difference (if principles do not matter, then one is equal to the other), why not find something else to do on election day? Since 2006, there has been no determinable difference between legislative successes of the Demoncrats and those of the Republicans. In fact, Republican legislation was probably written by Demoncrats.

        • “You are acknowledging that a vote for Republican establishment politicians is the same as voting for the Demoncrat; ”

          No that is NOT what he wrote. Either you are a moron or you a shill for Democrats trying to convince aggravated Republicans to not vote.

          BECAUSE NOT VOTING IS VOTING FOR A DEMOCRAT.

          NO ONE hates Rinos more than me..

          But anyone who stays home like you are advocating is a JACKASS.

        • Not voting is a vote for the Demoncrat. Voting for the RINO is a vote for the Demoncrat look-alike. A distinction without a difference. As I said before, you have two choices: rapid destruction of the Republic, slow destruction of the Republic. Outcome is the same, Demoncrat or Republican. Tell me again why I must interrupt my life to pick which path to destruction I prefer?

        • Sam , I have been a very strong supporter of Ted Cruz for some time , as most here will already know . I will vote for any Republican nominated over Clinton or Sanders but the Fascist who is leading in the poles .
          I am with you when it comes to Trump because I believe him to be a bigger threat to this country than we have ever had . A true nationalist Fascist dictator want to be . I actually would prefer Hillary or Bernie over Trump . I am an avid reader of history and I am very good at reading people , always have been , it’s just a gift from God . I wouldn’t expect anyone to believe me but I present it as a provable fact .
          Trump will take away any right he deems necessary to further his end goal , he has no regard for the constitution unless it suits him . I don’t know if he does what he does because he believes it best for America or not , this is a tell yet to be told , but he has Hitler and Mussolini characteristics that should not be ignored .
          Ginsberg will retire before Obama leaves the throne and we’ll end up with two new , young progressive anti 2nd A justices and will be requested to get in line with our AR’s and twenty round magazines before the Don ever says I will .
          I think it’s time Ted comes home and back to the Senate to fight against this outcome with everything he has , the progressives in DC will never let him in the Presidency , they’re too entrenched everywhere and the American voting populace is by and large out of touch with reality .
          If Cruz doesn’t win Texas strongly and all the delegates there and a few more on Tuesday , go back to the Senate Ted , I’ll continue to have you in my prayers .
          I will not vote for Donald Trump and have that on my conscience .

    • I will NEVER compromise my integrity or my values. Trump has neither, so why would I vote for a man who has no principles, but who is double-minded? WHY WOULD I? Does that even make sense to any of you people who say they will just vote Republican because the person SAYS THEY ARE REPUBLICAN, if though their history and fruits have shown them to be DEMOCRAT? What would be the point? EXPLAIN THAT TO ME.

      Never mind. YOU CAN’T.
      https://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/2016/01/31/32-reasons-a-trump-presidency-would-be-a-catastrophe-for-america/

      • It is foolhardy to believe that four men, writing an opinion aimed at getting MOST of what they want, while wording it in an ambiguous manner in order to gain the fifth vote they need for approval, can be the final arbiters of what a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right actually means. It is not like the previous decisions of the SCOTUS have never been politically self-serving or just plain wrong.

        The Second Amendment was written in plain and unambiguous language and its intent was explicitly to deny the government the authority to diminish the ability of the people to effectively arm themselves against a tyrannical government in the first place and to form militias against that government if necessary. Those two goals mean that any attempt by the very enjoined government to define limitations on arms or the method of bearing those arms is prima facie “infringement”.

        Heller gave us some good ammunition against gun grabbers, but without any teeth other than “SCOTUS said so.” And it left the gun grabbers the option of opposing the Second Amendment itself by agreeing that the term “…shall not be infringed.” wasn’t really what the Founding Fathers meant to say.

        Article V of The Constitution of the United States of America gives the precise method with which that constitution may be amended. It does not include “by a decision written by a majority of Supreme Court justices currently sitting”. And that includes even if the decision was unanimous.

  2. And the lunacy of the right wing will likely give us Trump as the Republican nominee or his splitting off for a 3rd party run which guarantees a Clinton presidency. Either way the 2nd Amendment is in greater jeopardy because of the Republican party’s pandering to evangelical and anti-intellectual base have created a party in which no candidate is deserving a vote to be president. The crazy crap that comes out of the right is too much detail here. And no I’m not voting for a Democrat either, but they are less crazy which isn’t saying much.

    Trump and his supporters are reason enough to own guns to protect yourself from the unconstitutional actions which are sure to come.

    • I hear what you are saying, but perfect is the enemy of good.

      There is no perfect candidate, you have to pick what issues are important to you and vote based on those, swallowing the bitter pill that is all the other issues that are not as important. Voting for a 3rd party candidate is just not voting at this point in time. And the crazy crap coming out from the Left is not any less crazy than that coming from the right, you just align with that crazy vs our crazy.

      So yes, guns are important to me, and so I’m voting R, even when I think Trump is an egomaniac with an emphasis on the maniac part

      • False premise.

        A ponderism…’There is no Left or Right. There is only Tyranny or Freedom’.

        Tyranny from the purported ‘right’ is still tyranny.

        Perhaps the yardstick one should measure govt in general with as well as candidates for public office is the actual Constitution and the essential fundamental principles of Liberty and limited-government.

        If some action or some person fails to measure up to those simple, critical and easy to discern things, then it/they should be summarily rejected as being unfit and completely unacceptable.

        You are simply making the old, tired, overused and false argument to apply the ‘Paradigm of The Lesser Turd’. This paradigm and tactic is provably and directly complicit in the destruction of the Constitution and the fall of the Republic.

        It never ceases to amaze me how many people are so easily controlled in mass numbers into supporting tyranny via the fear of the ‘other turd’, thus ensuring that there will NEVER be a restoration of the Republic via the electoral process.

        And tyranny marches on…Left-Right, Left-Right, Left-Right….and people continue to support it because of failure to have, let alone to hold to, fundamental liberty principles and due to the constant application of the ‘Paradigm of The Lesser Turd’.

        Sad stuff, really.

        • Not understanding. The current political landscape is, “my side is not as bad”, but certainly no better. What are the alternatives to “lesser of two evils”?

          Let’s presume for the moment that Left and Right, Liberal and Conservative are not substitutes for Tyranny and Freedom? How does one effectuate “Freedom” now? The idea that somehow the clock can be turned back to 1789 is just not worth the discussion.

          Given the condition of the nation, how does one vote for “Freedom” (which is also a vote against Tyranny)? Why would one believe there is a majority of voters who either know the difference between Tyranny and Freedom, or even a desire to know? And if “they” know and care, why would one believe “they” would act to ensure “Freedom”?

          History has no examples of arresting a slide from freedom into lack of freedom (no, the American Revolution was not an example, it was a result of the slide). Delaying is the only option available.

    • As I said, if you refuse to vote for a GOP candidate in the face of this garbage just because you don’t like them, you are worse than a Demokkkrat.

      Right now, it would take an act of GOD for Trump to NOT get the nomination. (He’s got twice the delegates of all other candidates combined.) But if you and other idiots like you refuse to turn out for Trump because he’s “not a real conservative” then you will be handing the White House to the DNC.

      Oh, and I will turn out for whomever wins the GOP nomination because I know that my personal minor quibbles with ANY candidate in the GOP field are not as important as getting a Republican into the White House with a GOP controlled Congress.

      • The Trump nomination is a LONG way from established at this point. He currently has less than 7% of the delegates needed to secure the nomination. Trump may well be the nominee, and while I don’t trust his “conversion” to being a conservative, come November I will vote for whoever is running against Clinton. Because SCOTUS!

      • His point is that if you’re supporting Trump now (in the primaries), you’re supporting the candidate that is least likely to win the general against Hillary. It’s both obvious, and backed by data – just look at Hillary vs Trump/Cruz/Rubio polls on RealClearPolitics.

        So if you believe that SCOTUS nomination is super-important (and from 2A perspective, it is), and this is your single issue – you should vote for the most “electable” Republican candidate in the primaries. Right now, by all accounts, this is Rubio.

        • I am not supporting any of the candidates, but….Trump is trumping everywhere (so far). So how does that make Rubio more electable? (as of this moment)

        • Trump is trumping all other candidates in the Republican primary.

          This doesn’t say anything about how he would be able to stand up to a Democratic nominee in the general election.

          I’ll repeat again, look at the polls for general:

          http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
          http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html
          http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_rubio_vs_clinton-3767.html

          The reason is also obvious: Trump has a very enthusiastic base on the Republican side of the aisle, but it’s not a majority (note that none of his wins so far were 50%). But even on that side, he also has a lot of people who will never vote for him. And definitely a lot of people on the Democrat side who would vote for a turd, if that’s what it took to not have Trump elected.

          Basically, if Republicans nominate Trump, Democrats just need to play clips from his speeches for campaign ads, and add a message along the lines of, “if you don’t want to have this, get your ass out and vote”. And they will win in a landslide, because it’ll drive turnout for all non-white Democrat voters like nothing else ever did before, not even Obama; and for a significant chunk of white voters as well.

        • It is a curiosity that the majority of voters in primaries/caucuses do not favor Trump. But that has been the breakout for many past election cycles: the candidate did not get the 51% or more majority until there were only two candidates left.

          Regardless of whatever, as a candidate racks up the wins, the momentum adds velocity. Polls taken today do not reflect excitability in the fall. In 2008, Hillary was the “electable” candidate, until she wasn’t.

          Again I ask, does one favor a rapid death of the Republic, or a slow death? There is only one destination, and both parties are running toward it; one faster than the other.

        • The “momentum” in primaries can rack up further votes in the primaries for sure, but not in the general.

          The problem with Trump is that he’s everything that the left hates, openly, unabashedly, and proud of it. So as he skyrockets to the nomination on the right, there’s more and more agitation on the left about the need to stop him by any means possible. So his momentum gives him attention, but it’s not necessarily the kind of attention that translates to votes in the general – a lot of it is directly the opposite (i.e. people who would come to vote just to vote against him).

        • So why perpetuate the lie of a two-party system? Get it over with, now.

          “Electability” is THE central issue for the Republican party. Their concept is someone the political opposition (there is really no unclaimed middle ground; no independents) will support. Thus the need to not offend. Newsflash !! Principles offend the unprincipled; get over it.

        • I’m not telling people whether they should or shouldn’t consider “electability”. It depends on your long-term goals. I’m just saying that if you do want to consider it, then Trump is the least electable candidate.

          I’m not even right-wing. And there’s a similar discussion going on the other side of the aisle wrt Hillary and her chances. Where, again, I think she’s actually less electable than Sanders (although not as unelectable as Trump). But, again, depending on one’s goals, it’s not necessarily a reason to support or oppose her. Just something to be aware of when making conscious decisions.

        • Trump is trumping for now because he’s only going up against other Republicans. His unfavorable ratings are over twice as high as Hilary’s. The ‘electable’ that we need to focus on is the general election.

          Also, look at his history. He’s no conservative. He’s an entertainer and a showman telling people what he knows they want to hear, but not actually saying anything of substance. It’s like watching a high school class president election. All the great things he’s going to do, but no explanation about how he’ll make it happen.

          But to be clear. If he wins the nomination, I’m voting Trump. No other vote in the general will help us with the SCOTUS situation.

        • I understand int19h 100 % here , I know you are making a valid point and one that all people who want to conserve the right to keep and bear arms should listen very closely too . I also assume you will be most likely voting for Bernie in the general election , which actually makes your point more valid to me .
          The media can’t wait to unleash the hounds on Trump in the general , they have kid gloved him ever so softly as to do their best and make him the front runner .
          Cruz can’t pee on a toilet seat without Trump and Rubio crying foul and the media runs gleefully with the headlines , he obviously has ‘ all ‘ against him and couldn’t hope for an honest fight . We would all be better served by him going back to fight the SCOUS nominations and let Rubio win the GOP nomination , now that Jeb is out all the super delegates will go to Rubio and Rubio will have a better chance in the general .
          Thanks int19h , you are spot on .

        • I’m not voting for anyone, since I’m not a citizen yet, and I respect the democratic process and the laws of this country 🙂

    • I would hold any of the Republican nominees this election cycle in higher esteem than any of the Democratic nominees with regards to the Second Amendment. Sanders and Clinton both touted how bad their rating is with the NRA, and are unabashedly proud of their Gun Control stances. Rest assured, if we lose this election there WILL be gun control, the Democratic nominees are out of the closet on the issue. They are no longer trying to even placate anyone with their false rhetoric, on this issue they’re being truthful for the first time.

      As much as I don’t care for Trump, but I’ll vote for him if he becomes the nominee. I’d much rather prefer Cruz who did his damnedest to defend the Second Amendment on multiple occasions including after Sandy Hook (and he had an entertaining exchange on the matter with Feinstein during Senate hearings). The alternative is much worse, which is going to be Clinton (Sanders, in spite of his support, cannot win against the Democratic machine, either way he’d be just as bad if not worse); Clinton is basically another four years, at least, of Obama.

      • Ah yes…the old and with provable results, ‘Paradigm of The Lesser Turd’.

        The vehicle used so successfully for so many decades that has led exactly to the pathetic burgeoning totaitarian state that we now have.

        Hell, one doesn’t want to actually stand on fundamental principle (let alone understand and have such principles) and the Constitution and accept no less than adherence to that Constitutionand those principles, huh?

        Nope…gotta play in the clown-circus which is staged for us and which factually leads to further expansion of govt’s size, scope and ‘power’, further loss of individual liberty, more controls, more regulation, more Keynesian economics, more war, more invasions, overthrow of govts and occupations around the world, more created ‘war on terror’, more police-state, more surveillance-state, more destruction of the Constitution.

        Yep…’our turd’ is better than ‘their turd’ and we all know that even though our turd stinks, we just gotta support him to keep the other turd out, huh?

        Umm, yeah…works great, just as is historically provable.

        Fact is, all this does is ensure that the lesson learned by the globalist-collectivist cabal is that they can continue to advance their goals by putting up clear domestic enemies of the Constitution as candidates as long as they can keep the ‘party faithful’ in fear and believing that they gotta vote the turd offered or the other turd offered up for the ‘other side’ will get in.

        Seems Professor Quigley had something to say about this Paradigm, long ago…lets take a trip in the ‘way back machine’, shall we:

        “The National parties and their presidential candidates, with the Eastern Establishment assiduously fostering the process behind the scenes, moved closer together and nearly met in the center with almost identical candidates and platforms, although the process was concealed as much as possible, by the revival of obsolescent or meaningless war cries and slogans (often going back to the Civil War). … The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. … Either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies. [Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: Macmillan, 1966), pp. 1247-1248.]”

        Gaze into the mirror provided by the ‘way back machine’….does anyone recognize themselfs as players in the game?

        • Yes, simply put, “our guy at least is not as bad as their guy” is the core principal of the formal Republican party. The leftists and libertarians proclaim their guy is “better” than anyone else. Seems a small difference, but success of the left shows it works. Whenever you are contemplating “not as bad” you already conceded the case is hopeless.

        • Please regale us this your more effective solution than voting for a Republican candidate. I’m all ears.

        • The situation presented is: one party is hell bent of destroying the nation as rapidly as possible; the other is taking a slower train. Which train is preferred, because there is only one destination?

        • Your condescending narrative does no favors in making me want to rethink my position. I have done my own soul-searching to determine what I would be more comfortable with. What if I vote third-party and Trump wins? What if I vote third-party and Clinton wins? What if I just vote Trump? Those are my considerations, and the one that lets me sleep at night is to vote for Trump if he is the nominee.

          If the parties were going to learn their lesson as Mr. Quigley postulates they would then it would have happened already, it would have happened in 1976, 1980, 1984 or 1992 (at least in relatively recent times). It didn’t happen and it won’t happen. For what it’s worth the Republican establishment has already been disrupted with Trump and Cruz as it is, and to a lesser extent, Carson, regardless of who wins. Are they taking cues? No. They’re changing their bets from Bush and now betting on Rubio since Bush dropped out.

          The Republican establishment isn’t going for what their party wants and their party has thrown that in their face over and over again during the primaries and in numerous other elections, particularly in the past eight years. They have put forward their candidate and lost several elections already and it hasn’t phased them. Your implication that Trump’s success in this primary is by design of the establishment in the first place is preposterous and runs counter to everything that has happened up until now. If by some inconceivable notion that turns out to be true then I’ll be the first to admit they pulled a fast one on me.

          In any case, Trump hasn’t won anything yet but delegates from four of 50 states, he needs 1,156 more to get the nomination, and Cruz and Rubio need 1,120. This is far from over, and I don’t intend to support him UNLESS he ends up winning the primary. That’s what the primary process is all about, my candidate is the one that should win, and this is when my candidate should win. If my candidate doesn’t win the caucuses now, then why is he going to win come the general election? What good is it going to do me to vote for him then? What good is it going to do my country? I’m not going to walk away feeling good about myself thinking, “Boy, I sure did teach the establishment a lesson! Come 2020 they’ll pay attention! If they don’t, then maybe 2024, or 2028, or 2032…” No, I’m going to walk away wondering what could I have done to avoid having Hilary Clinton as the new POTUS.

          I’ve come to terms with my statement, and I will stand by it and I will continue to stand by it unless something unprecedented comes from Trump that makes me decide otherwise. Until then, the cause of voting for a third-party is, yes, throwing your vote away. Not only that, but you’re voting for Clinton at this point, you’re just doing it by proxy. Don’t like the two candidates? Sorry, do your part and get your candidate gets elected in the primary next go-around. Don’t make things worse for the country because you didn’t get your way.

    • “I’m not voting for a Democrat either, but they are less crazy which isn’t saying much”

      You know, I’m an anti-two party system kind of guy, but I cannot abide this part, at all. The “Trump phenomenon” is what it is. However, acting as if you “know” what he is going to do is intellectual dishonesty. No one “knows” what any one person will do.

      That being said, I’ve studied history and I know Socialism (Commuism Lite) and it does not work. And Socialism is the path the current crop of Dems are touting, with the establishment Reps following close behind.

      Trump is a unhinged wild card – no doubt. But, crazier than people who voice from the heavens a tried and true, failed ideology? No, they are the craziest of the crazies, bar none.

      • ” But, crazier than people who voice from the heavens a tried and true, failed ideology? No, they are the craziest of the crazies, bar none.”

        I seem to remember it being said that that is the very definition of crazy.

        Or maybe not ‘crazy’ per se so much as a calculated means to more power and control. What better way to solidify centralized power than to propose centralized solutions designed to fail, then claim even more centralization is needed upon realization of that failure?

        Which is more frightening and evil…repeating failure over and over out of ignorance to notice the problem or the desire to cause the failure for selfish and narcissistic power consolidation?

        • Both.

          The useful idiots (as Stalin used to call them) are just as bad as the ones who seeks to usurp power in the name of “safety”, “fairness”, and “social justice.”

          I’m under no illusion Trump, or any Rep for that matter, is some form of savior for the American people. But, I, honestly, do not think the same can be said for Grandpa Simpson and Hiliary the “I don’t need no stinkin’ secured server” Clinton supporters.

          They truly believe if you follow a clown, you won’t end up at the circus.

        • ^ This.

          Rock on “Rock On”

          Guns ain’t the only problem with the evil blue house of (D). If you can’t see that, you’re just not paying attention and the finer details of history have slipped past, or escaped your current memory.

          The (R) house is broken too, but only because it is NOT in outright support of it’s Conservative backing and roots. If it were the “Conservative” party it would crush all takers. The only candidates to get anything like a consensus between the parties were either Conservative (Reagan [and really only just enough], GHWB [claimed], GWB [“compassionate conservative” whatever the F that is], and Bill Clinton [had to claim he was to cover the bs that he and Hillary really were]).

          Conservatism is how we get along, it is how America continues, it’ll be the force that rights her should/when she has faltered. It’ll be the impetus for creating whatever comes after her.

      • The Democrats are mostly calling for European social democracy, not socialism, except for Sanders, and the Democrats do not want him to win. Hillary has only upped her lefty rhetoric to compete with Sanders is all. Trump is the one who has talked about infringing on free trade in numerous ways and sounding like a Democrat in the process, and extolling eminent domain, and engaging in the strawman that conservatives are against eminent domain (they are against the abuse of it to benefit people like him, not the proper use of it to build needed infrastructure).

        • That’s a joke, right? The free trade part?

          Listen I’m a free market kind of guy, but the system we have now and as well as all “social systems” in Europe is not free anything. It’s all about gov control and gov power.

          Trump would have no support if freedom was still any part of our market system or culture.

          I hate Trump, I hate his rhetoric – I’m a Libertarian/Independent who believes in free market principles.

          Sadly, though, no front runner has that in mind. I’m not voting for Hill or Bern, and Trump appears to be front runner for the Rep candidate. So, I’m left a choice. Sit out or vote for Trump. And I’ll choice Trump over any Euro-democratic-social- how ever you want to doll it up, any day.

        • When nations are equally economically developed, “free trade” makes sense. Once you include nations who still rely on near slave wages, “free trade” means the buyers of cheap goods have a boon for a day. Then it becomes obvious all the people who lost jobs to the cheap nations are no longer consumers at the level before.

          One of the first indicators that “free trade” destroys is the shrinking of the middle class. Without jobs, or “high paying” jobs, the middle class either becomes part of the upper class, or devolves into the lower economic strata. “Free trade” between dissimilar nations is a “race to the bottom” for cheap costs of production, and high profit margins. It is one thing to believe corporations are some sort of disembodied Borg cube, but when companies go out of business (by failure or move out of their home country), ordinary people lose buying capability.

          It is as simple as looking at the countries where the US is so desperate to have “free trade”. Those nations have a very wealthy upper economic class, and an abysmal lower economic class. There is very, very little in the middle. Why would one expect that ripping middle class job opportunities from the US will not crush the middle? When there was no “free trade” with these foreign oligarchs, the US had a thriving middle class, the economy was expanding, opportunities to move from the low economic scale to the middle (or upper) was greater than anytime since the establishment of “free trade” agreements. And where is the evidence “free trade” has created a vibrant middle class in any of the “trading partners”?

          In the US, companies are free to do what they need to make a profit. It would be impossible to become completely self-sustaining. But we should not be surprised to see that eventually, everything will regress to the mean. When you combine a low number with a high number, the result can never be a number higher still.

        • It’s not just equal economic development. The problem at the heart of “free trade” as it exists today is that the flow of goods is free, but the flow of labor is not. In other words, Apple can ship manufacturing of iPhones to China, but Chinese laborers cannot just come and work in US (but they would sure like to, given the wages here).

          If flow was free in both directions, you’d see a flow of labor from poorer countries into well-off countries, which would depress the wages in the latter, and raise them in the former, until they are equalized. And, of course, once they’re equal, there’s no point in outsourcing anything.

          On the other hand, when labor is artificially constrained by borders, the differing economic conditions can be exploited in this manner – make the goods in the markets where labor is cheap (but, consequently, couldn’t afford the very product that they make), and sell them where it’s expensive (and therefore workers have higher income, that lets them buy more expensive goods). It’s like the direct opposite of what Ford and other smart capitalists promoted. It depends on the separation of the world into haves and have-nots, more people making things that they cannot afford.

          So, either you need true free trade – goods and labor both flow freely – or you need restrictions on the flow of goods that match and counteract the restrictions on the flow of labor.

      • If Trump actually delivers on everything he said and actively implied, it’d be full fledged, bona fide fascism, complete with a leader cult of personality.

        On the Democrat side of the aisle, what you see is broad support for democratic socialism / social democracy (they’re actually slightly different, but I don’t think it’s important for an American audience yet). This is the kind of stuff that, today, exists in countries like Sweden and Germany. Now you may bear a very strong dislike for that, and I’m not going to argue with you about it. But I would hope that you can see that Sweden today is vastly preferable to Italy circa mid-1930s.

        • Euro soical-whatever you want to call it is fascism for the lazy, stupid, and mediocre.

          How’s Greece doing in their Euro-social quest, by the by?

          Anything that traces its roots back to Marx is the death of freedom and the economy. The further you get away, the slower the death, but it comes no less.

          I’m voting for the wild card fascist, not the socialist-fascist for the stupid, lazy, and entitled.

        • Greece has actually been a fascist state for a good part of post-WW2 timeline (look up “Regime of the Colonels”). To put the state of their economy on “socialists” is extremely misguided.

          Meanwhile, that country that bails Greece out, Germany, was mostly “socialist” in the same timeline.

          Then again, of course, European social democracy (what you incorrectly call “socialism” in US) is not rooted in Marxism at all. Quite the opposite – it originates as a reaction to actual socialist revolutions and their outcomes, along the lines of, “how do we prevent this from happening in our country?”

          And the notion that e.g. Sweden is “soft fascist” is so inane, it doesn’t even deserve a retort.

        • Sweden is a homogenous (until they let all the refugees in anyway) culture with a very small population, if you think America, in anyway shape or form, could make the leap to establishing their system you are out of your mind. And Germany can keep their Democratic Socialism, or whatever – they’ll end up knowing all about Sharia Law here in a generation or two, anyways. But, they helped all the poor migrants, so social justice held sway. Mark my words, Germany will have a Muslim Brotherhood political candidate before long, then they’ll see some real fascism.

          And you seem to be breaking down fascism in to right and left paradigms. It’s not. Unless you believe the liberal BS.

          Full Definition of fascism from Merriam-Webster
          1
          often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
          2
          : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control.

          There are no right or left paradigms in this, nor does the act of being nationalist in nature make one automatically fascist.

          In the end, I don’t think you and I will agree. So, if you are American, vote for whomever you will – I’m not here to stop. If you are not, your opinion means very little, slightly less than mine, but at least I get a vote.

          Take care.

        • Fascism is a right-wing ideology insofar as it is associated with right-wing social conservatism – you know, focus on the family, adherence to traditional family values etc.

          The act of being nationalist does not make one fascist, of course. The problem that I have with Trump is that his rhetoric is very much along the lines of “exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition”. He’s very much pro big government, so long as it comes to all those things like building the wall, kicking the Muslims out, economic protectionism etc. And he has a cult of personality. And he personally attacks his opponents, and it has already started going into encouraging physical violence.

          Speaking of authoritarianism, have a look at this:
          http://www.vox.com/2016/2/23/11099644/trump-support-authoritarianism

    • Care to back up any of your histrionics? Perhaps you could provide a list of the “Unconstitutional things to come” under President Trump? Perhaps you could list the “crazy things” you think his supporters do or believe?

    • While the Evangelicals IMO are too religious and anti-intellectual, their (IMO) craziness is not as damaging as the Democrats, who are equally crazy and spout things that also make them where they do not deserve a vote. The Evangelicals are mainly hard-line on abortion and gays. But everything else, they’re pretty solid on, and the courts, unlike with gun rights, would never uphold the kind of abortion restrictions they want, and that’s assuming they even could get them, which they won’t. Nor would the courts uphold any flat-out anti-gay legislation either, which they also wouldn’t get.

      The Democrats, on the other hand, are nuts and wrong regarding the environment, foreign policy, economic policy, tax policy, healthcare, energy, guns, legal theory and the Constitution, free speech, etc…and those things the courts could uphold and they can do severe damage to freedom and the country.

  3. While this is an accurate portrayal of the current situation, it is discussing an amendment to our Constitution, an amendment that does little more than remind us of one particular right…that is inalienable as all rights are…which even without the amendment would remain a right. What removing the amendment would do is to enable government to freely infringe on that right.

    This is a critical time in our history and we cannot afford to allow on the bench any individual willing to entertain a progressive attitude toward our Constitution. Encroachments on the Second Amendment are not encroachments on our right to keep and bear arms, but rather are encroachments on the protection the amendment provides against the tyranny of governments.

    • Technically, the government shouldn’t even be able to infringe on it much without the amendment, as remember, the Federalists did not see a Bill of Rights as even being necessary, because since the Constitution never granted the government powers to infringe on those rights in the first place, there therefore should have been no fear of the government doing so.

  4. Heller leaves enough holes in the 2nd amendment to have you sitting at home with a gun designed by your state legislature, a gun you can only leave home with under the most onerous conditions. Don’t believe me? Move here to California

  5. “This is the most important election since 1980. Chose wisely this November.”

    No doubt.

    “Republican senators have, in the past, been all too eager to drop their pants and bend over for Democrat nominees whereas Democrat senators fight Republican nominees tooth and nail.”

    Worth observing. When the Democrats face an issue they for the most part act as a single unit, they all vote the party line (often when votes are tallied up and they know they have enough for a victory they will allow certain members to vote otherwise when it suits them – knowing they have a win). Democrat legislators are well controlled by the party and always step up and do what they are told – always. They are also willing and able to fight for the issue with unparalleled vigor – when they are in the minority and the issue is important to them, they play dirty pool, they use procedural trickery and when it really counts they very often prevail over the majority. The Democrats “get things done” in implementing their party goals.

    The Republicans are exactly the opposite, it is difficult to get them all on board with an issue – there are a number of Republicans who are effectively Democrats when you look at their votes and accomplishments. The Republicans are fractured and not tightly controlled compared to the Democrats – they almost never are able to “get things done” when it comes to protecting the constitutional rights and liberties of we-the-people.

    One would almost think that Republican leadership isn’t really on board with the issues that matter to the voters who put them in office. In fact, looking at the accomplishments of the Republican party leadership, it almost seems that their true goals are simply, expand the government, implement socialism, ignore/override the constitutional rights and liberties of we-the-people.

    If the Republicans acted like the Democrats to in this regard Obamacare would be a thing of the past – how many opportunities have there been for them to block this law – maybe not overturn it completely but to defang it and stop it using procedural steps (filibuster a-la Cruz for example).

    If you look at their actions and not their words, it seems pretty clear to me that Republican leadership likes Obamacare and wants it to stay exactly where it is.

    The biggest problem the conservative faces today is the Republican party, not Obama, not the Democrats, none of that.

    I fully expect the Republicans to screw us with SCOTUS appointments, get ready for it.

    I could be wrong. But I’m not.

    • Establishment Republicans are defintely not conservative. They are corporatists. They have no issue expanding the government if it helps big business get more money. After all, that is where they get their primary donors. People like, Trump. I find it absolutely disgusting that Trump is getting the evangelical votes when he doesn’t even know how to say the name of the book of Collossians. His bible his mother gave him many many moons ago looked unread and still new. On top of that, he touted the virtues of Planned Parenthood (even during this election cycle). Then there is this anti-establishment angst in both parties. But Trump is part of the problem with the RINO Establishment. Sure he wasn’t on the politician side of that establishment, but he was on the side of the corporate donors. Of which he indiscriminately gave to both Reps and Dems to further his corporate ambitions and grease the wheels for his corporation. At the expense of WE THE PEOPLE. The worst part is, both party primaries is proving Johnathan Gruber right – the stupidity of the american voter.

        • Trump is a wild card – I’m not sure there’s anyone who ‘owns’ him, but we don’t really know what the man thinks and what the man plans to do.

          I don’t really care what he says in campaigning, or what he may have said in the past about this and that. He knows how to play the public and he is a powerful force.

          He has had successes and many failures – there’s a lot about the man that I think shows potential for good for our country, but as I said it will come down to what he ends up doing with it and we cannot predict that, only guess.

          He is a wild card where a Clinton or any Democrat really is a certain disaster. Yes I will vote Trump if it comes down to him vs. any Democrat, but it’s not much more than a shot in the dark.

        • Trump as president would be a larger version of Jesse Ventura as governor of Minnesota. Jesse has no allies or cronies in the legislature. In the end, he could only veto, because the legislature would do nothing to adopt any of his proposed bills. And veto was successful in only a few instances. Where are Trump’s allies in the legislature? Thinking Trump can rule by executive action/executive order? The unfortunate truth is Trump’s promises are dependent on being a monarch.

    • One would almost think that Republican leadership isn’t really on board with the issues that matter to the voters who put them in office.

      There is no “almost” about it. And THAT is why so many people are backing Trump.

      … looking at the accomplishments of the Republican party leadership, it almost seems that their true goals are simply, expand the government, implement socialism, ignore/override the constitutional rights and liberties of we-the-people.

      Agreed.

      Summary: today’s Republicans are 1950s Democrats … and today’s Democrats are 1950s Socialists (Communism Light). I think that goes a long way toward explaining the horrifically low approval numbers of Congress.

      • Your points are well taken. Problem is there seems to be a real lack of interest in course correction. While we elected a bunch of “tea party” people to house and senate, too many of the old guard remain, and remain in power. That fact seems to tell us that the problem is not establishment leadership, but the fact most of the “Republican” voters like it that way.

  6. More than likely, Hillary will win AND the senate will go Democrat–the raw numbers are against Republicans. That will mean a much more liberal replacement for Scalia than if they vote now. If Obama picks, the nominee is going to have to be middle of the road to get a thumbs up.

    • The outlook would be much better if the Republicans in the Senate weren’t a bunch of spineless jellyfish. Is there any reason why the court can’t go without a justice for another 4 years? If Ginsberg goes, what’s wrong with a 7 member bench? Put on your cups and play hardball.

  7. The only way Trump gets my vote in November is if he declares who he intends to nominate to replace Scalia AND his nominee is someone that will defend the Constitution like Scalia. Otherwise, I don’t trust him any more than I trust Hildebeest on court nominations or just about anything else. If those are are choices the best bet is to pray for Darth Vader Ginsberg’s good health for at least another 4 years so she can be replaced by a conservative president in the 2020s.

    • It is conservatives getting mad at not having the exact nominee they want and taking their ball home at election time that has given us 7.5 years of a barely concealed marxist for president. If it happens again this November that Cruz, Rubio and Bush supporters stay home and sulk then we’re well and truely f**ked as a nation.

      Sometimes you just have to hold your nose and pull the lever. I’m pretty sure Hillary will be a lot less pro 2A than Donald.

      • I held my nose and voted for McCain and I held my nose and voted for Romney. I’ll draw the line at Trump. What’s the point of voting for someone who’s just as bad as the Democrat? If Clinton wins the Republicans can try again in 2020. If Trump wins he’ll either be reelected in 2020 or a Democrat will take over. If Trump is president until January of 2025 than the Democrats will almost certainly take the White House in 2024. If Trump wins it might be 2032 before we get a chance to elect a constitutional conservative. So no, I won’t vote for Trump unless he gives me a vote for the Supreme Court. And that’s not going to happen.

    • I still believe that the best replacement for Scalia is Ted Cruz. I still would rather see him give the Oath of Office than take it.

      • Now if Trump announced he’d be appointing Cruz to the court, that would definitely get him my vote.

    • Noble in theory, but a virtual impossibility. Blue states will not come to the table, and the Red States have no leverage to force them to the table.

      It would either require the threat of secession, or open rebellion.

      • Then don’t support it.

        If three deployments have taught me anything, which is very little, I’ll attempt the legal and civil means before an out-and-out fight, anytime I can.

  8. DT doesnt give a rats ass about SCOTUS or 2A. He just wants to be king. If elected he will find life as an agenda pusher just as difficult as the current president.

  9. I don’t remember reading anywhere in the 2nd amendment of the right to bear arms except if deemed dangerous or bad. Nor do I remember reading how your “arm” must be carried?
    So to state that it doesn’t protect concealed carry is is the same as saying it doesn’t protect open carry, and that is wrong, it clearly states to bear arms, not to bear arms openly.

    We are slowly approaching the reason we broke free from England to begin with, the stranglehold by the powers that be saying how you must live your life around tasks that do not directly affect other individuals.

    Saying you don’t like people who conceal carry is no different than me saying I don’t like the idea of people learning martial arts. I can’t tell by looking at someone if they are trained in a deadly skill that exceeds my own skill, therefore we should make it illegal to hide this, you should have to wear a shirt with bold print stating your skill set.

    sound dumb? so does complaining about me covering my weapon, cell phone, pocket watch, or whatever you feel afraid of.

    Entirely too much babying of other people.

  10. “The first limitation the Court placed on the Second Amendment right is that the right does not extend to unlawful or unjustifiable purposes. For example, there is no Second Amendment right to commit armed robbery.”

    Wait, did SCOTUS unintentionally say that taxation is unconstitutional?

  11. “The so called gun-rights groups and their lawyers squandered the opportunity to solidify the Second Amendment right in the courts…” Mr. Nichols is correct in naming the so-called gun rights movement as what they are. Mostly self-serving posers interested in job security.

    Look at Richard Pearson at the Illinois State Rifle Association, the NRA state affiliate. ISRA did NOTHING to promote concealed carry for 20 years, and actively opposed the grassroots IGOLD gun owner march in the state capitol Springfield. Pearson was involved in recruiting Otis McDonald for the lawsuit against the Chicago handgun ban. Now Pearson thinks concealed carry was his idea all along.

    Give the hicks credit for getting trendy and recruiting a black man from the south side of Chicago as the face man for the lawsuit. After Alan Gura and SAF won a smashing victory for gun rights in the 2010 McDonald decision, in 2013 Pearson and NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde loaded up Rep. Brandon Phelps HB183 carry bill with everything the police unions wanted: criminal penalties for hundreds of gun-free zones, an unelected Star Chamber licensing review board, an unlimited privacy waiver, plus Duty to Inform so police criminals can execute armed citizens at will.

    Who are the so-called gun rights groups? Pearson is an insurance salesman in the one-horse town of Chatsworth IL, next to a railroad line and a grain bin. A back slapping, Masonic ring wearing good old boy, laughing all the way to the bank about the money ISRA will make on lawsuits after using blacks like Otis McDonald.

    Todd Vandermyde worked for William Dugan at the Intl. Union of Operating Engineers local 150 in Countryside, IL. Dugan was convicted by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in 2010. The NRA lobbyist worked for a road builders union that was taken down by the FBI and the Chicago U.S. Attorney who convicted two IL governors, Rod Blagojevich and George Ryan.

    Who are the so-called gun rights groups in IL? Mostly losers, liars, ignorant rednecks and scum who betray the interests of the gun owners they are paid to represent.

  12. All the better reason to support Cruz or even Rubio in the primary. Trump gets creamed by Hilldog. Rubio stomps her and Cruz will likely skate by

  13. “Not a single court, anywhere, has recognized that the Second Amendment is a right which shall not be infringed.”

    QED.

    (quod erat demonstrandum; that which was to be demonstrated)

    Game, Set, Match

    How else can it be said, gun rights absolutists are not winning (and the 2A non-absolutists are not winning, either)

    You see, the gun sense side is always active, always supporting gun safety measures. The gun rights people misfire (pun intended) their every law suit. The tide of the demographics is sweeping fossilized gun rights arguments aside as the young, who are properly educated about the threat posed by so-called “good guy with a gun” understand that everyone with a gun is a potential terrorist awaiting the crucial frustration that sets them on a killing spree.

    Gun sense people are the cultural bedrock of the school system. They cannot be dislodged. The only question remaining is how many more innocents must die before we reach the same level of safety from gun-slinging throwbacks as we see everywhere else around the world.?

    • Gun rights have made massive strides in the last 30 years, in both the courts and the legislatures. Consider the Right to Carry movement: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Rtc.gif

      Gun control has become a third rail for politicians in all but a small handful of states in the northeast and California. Everywhere else it’s political suicide to take on the ‘gun lobby’ (that’s me by the way). The situation with the courts is much more tenuous because your side has no reservation about putting in judges that will shred the Constitution. But even if you get your way in the courts the states or federal government still need to pass the laws. And even if you get your way there too, you’ve still got to find enough recklessly brave souls to go around to people’s homes and take the 340,000,000 guns already in private ownership. I’d say your fighting a lost cause.

      • “Gun rights have made massive strides in the last 30 years..”

        I disagree. 30 years ago I could walk around with a pistol on my hip or a rifle in the rear window and no one thought anything about it. We have a long way yet to go.

        • In my state 30 years ago walking around with a gun on your hip within the city limits of any town would get you a year in prison unless you were politically connected enough to be granted the privilege. And your rifle needed to be in a lockable case and stored in a non passenger compartment or in a place that is not easily accessible from any passenger. Also, if I locked up my firearms in a case, stuck it in my trunk and braved a trek across a state like New Jersey I could be arrested, tried and convicted of a felony and face half a decade in prison.

        • The Gov is talking about legality. Go look at older maps of where CCW permits were even issued, you’ll be surprised at how widespread it is today. Transport laws also varied state to state pre-FOPA. Culturally, however, we’re losing big time. My grandfather biked through suburban Connecticut to the woods with all manner of guns slung over his back in the late 1950’s. In high school, students stored their rifles and shotguns in lockers during hunting season. In the late 60’s, my dad and his friends shot BB guns in their front yard in very suburban Long Island, NY. Nobody batted an eyelash to any of this, cops waved and smiled. Try any of that today outside rural, pro-gun America today and you’d be putting your life in your hands.

        • MC, I think we’re winning culturally, it’s institutionally you’re seeing the other side taking more and more ridiculously bold steps. For instance, in the schools they’ve tried to make guns so taboo that when a 7 year old chews his pop-tart into the shape of a gun he gets suspended from school. Culturally we all (99% of us) know how ridiculous this is. However these people, bureaucrats, school administrators, etc. are in relative positions of power and have no bones about slapping a felony charge on a high school senior for leaving his pheasant gun in his truck in the parking lot. I don’t believe that the younger generation was born stupid, so I think all they’re going to accomplish is to ruin their own credibility.

          If we were losing culturally we’d be able to buy .22LR ammo for 3 cents a round.

    • “Gun sense people are the cultural bedrock of the school system.”

      True enough. However, unless the family model can be completely destroyed, where the children are brought up to believe “the leader” is the embodiment of mother, father, and God, or free will itself is abolished, then school is just school. Kids can be taught outside of school, don’t-cha-know.

      “The only question remaining is how many more innocents must die before we reach the same level of safety from gun-slinging throwbacks as we see everywhere else around the world.?”

      I hate to break it to you, friend, but it’s just not going to happen. If the anti’s had the numbers and power you folks wished you had, then you would have no need to waste your time here poking the bears.

      But, continue your ideological subversion in the hopes that one day you’ll see your quest for social justice done. But, just remember, every time you come on here for your social justice crusade, we all know that we are the ones getting the best of you, not the other way around.

      In fact, I’m going to do you one better – I will send some money to the NRA earmarked “2Asux from TTAG”, just for you, my friend.

      Moreover, I might just start doing that every time I see a post on here from you. So, you can sleep well at night, knowing you’re helping the NRA with your social crusade.

      Cheers!

      • Agree, time will have to pass. But like water on a rick, inexorably the gun sense side cuts a groove and pressure builds and then the breakthrough.

        How to confiscate 300 million guns? Repeal the second amendment. At that point, anyone other than law enforcement/military who are found to have a gun of any kind are instant felons, no trial needed (there being no “alleged” about being in possession of a then illegal gun) other than to set sentence. With 100 million gun owners, a few publicized arrests will put the rest in fear of being jailed for gun possession if contacted by police for any reason (and probably cause is established by the fact that 100 million people own guns and every person is highly likely to possess a gun), stop and search will be the order of the day. If all repealing the second amendment does is make gun owners keep their guns at home, most of the goal of confiscation will be accomplished.

        Yes, students can be “schooled” outside the classroom, but with every high school student being given a free college education, what do you imagine is the likely outcome of that? Pro-gun people are short-sighted and impatient; they want this whole gun rights thing settled, once and for all, right now. The gun sense side has the long view; the goal is worth the wait.

        • “Yes, students can be “schooled” outside the classroom, but with every high school student being given a free college education, what do you imagine is the likely outcome of that? Pro-gun people are short-sighted and impatient; they want this whole gun rights thing settled, once and for all, right now…”

          Well, no question by that statement who you support – Grandpa Bernie, claiming he can change the college tuition system, tax code, and federal gov’t’s budget and appropriations (which is done by Congress, FYI), without any real explanation of how.

          But, I digress. So, let me ask you something, since college apparently indoctrinates the masses without question – how is it my wife, with two degrees, and myself as an engineer, were not indoctrinated?

          Nor were the dozens of other pro-gun rights, college educated friends ours. Some friend even being self proclaimed “hardcore liberals” who own many guns and support concealed carry, at that. Riddle me that, Batman.

          The reality is, you and your ilk have been weighed and measured, and have been found wanting.

          Oh and, by the by, that is two posts, so that is two donations in your honor, today. I’ll just wait until the end of day to send the check – who knows how much you might rack up.

          Hey, how about you send me your address, so I can forward you your copy of “American Rifleman” mag. The way you are going, you might have enough for a full membership by day’s end.

        • You realize that it is only my ingrained charitable instincts that keep me from posting until you are broke, right?

          Just as “there will always be criminals with guns”, there will always be exceptions to any general proposition. The game is played not on the margins, but the inside. The vast number of college graduates accept the logic and benefit of the social changes needed; numbers, not exceptions, count. Who owns the education system grooms the generations.

          Unlike many other gun sense people, I study the “shall not be infringed” side. I have an NRA membership (but thanks for the offer of the magazine) so that I can stay updated on gun rights thinking (along with reading 4 gun forums per day). As often as possible, I try to use your own studies and sources to point out the weakness of the gun rights believers. It is futile to repeat the supporting data the gun sense side publishes.

          The most common trait among us is to cluster with those who think most like us, rendering all the other clusters irrelevant, Thus the result is insular thinking, hardening of the mind, and surrendering the future to other clusters we ignored. So I think it is important to be widely read about the politics of the gun rights crowd; it is the avenue to exploit weakness.

        • ‘no trial needed (there being no “alleged” about being in possession of a then illegal gun)’

          Now you’re going full dictator! (I’m not surprised.) You’re not just going to have to repeal the 2nd Amendment to achieve your mythical gun free utopia, but the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and probably the 14th as well. Of course the accused is ‘alleged’ to be in possession of a firearm – it’s the police that will be doing the alleging. In your utopia you’d best not piss off any cops, bureaucrats or politicians or you’ll be rounded up and incarcerated without trial.

        • In my utopia, gun owners “…best not piss off any cops, bureaucrats or politicians or you’ll be rounded up and incarcerated without trial.”

          I didn’t say no one would get a trial, only that a full trial would not be necessary. The sentencing would need a hearing and a judgement; there’s your day in court.

          Why would there be the need for a trial if it is universally illegal to possess a gun, for any reason? You are stopped for a traffic violation, you are a resident of the US, and given that one third of the populace “allegedly” owns guns, there is probable cause to search you and your transportation. Gun found; immediate jail until the sentencing hearing. What possible “facts” could a jury/judge need to see? What possible mitigation/justification would ever make the gun not be present (“throw down” guns would work only one or two times before courts ended that)? If the law prohibits gun possession, and you possess a gun, where is the “alleged” violation?

          In cases of, say, robbery, it might be necessary to have a trial to prove the “fact” that the accused was indeed robbing (as opposed to playing a prank, or false accusation by the “alleged” victim, etc.). But gun possession is binary; you do or you don’t, on the scene, ipso facto, beyond question. The sentencing judge could render a no jail time verdict if somehow there emerged any question of whether or not you voluntarily possessed a firearm.

        • Gov, this troll has nothing, just wild claims and SJW pipe dreams.

          He/she is just playing the “my dad can beat up your dad” game. It’s all BS.

          If the anti’s could have repealed the 2nd, then they would have, but they can’t, so they won’t. It’s all hot air, from 2Asux.

          Just a bunch of jibber-jabbering.

        • Your are correct. The gun sense cannot, yet, repeal the second amendment….directly. Time will come. Meanwhile, the courts are where the battle is won. There, and in every little township along the way. Eventually, gun rights will be so restricted as to be laughable. One of the greatest victories in gun control came recently where a federal judge ruled a community can pass laws restricting guns, if the community “feels it makes them safer”? Little by little, we are winning the contest to have the second amendment subject to intermediate scrutiny. The supreme court is, happily, afraid to rule definitively on all forms of gun ownership, even on the types of weapons permitted (Heller). Why? Don’t have a clue, but the reluctance is not a barrier to improved gun control measures.

          If you think I “don’t have anything” you wander about at your own peril (politically speaking). It is the emotional connection we make with society (especially the young) that is all the “anything” we need. Facts and figures do not convince the opposition. Appealing to people’s natural instinct to protect themselves and other citizens from gun threats (innocents being killed by “law abiding” gun owners) is the selling point. (Agree, emotion does lead to ridiculous ideas, but it is emotion that seals the deal, not logic).

        • Into what? The truth needs expanding? Are you aware of how creative pro-government people (and the bureaucrats) can be when it comes to promoting behavior (or preventing same)?

          If you are relying on the mythical “minutemen” of the gun rights gang to rebel, you have ignored 151 years of history. People are people. The vast majority do not want to live under threat of having their lives taken, property destroyed, futures eliminated in a futile effort to prove some arcane point about a historical relic of society long gone.

          Law-abiding gun owners will remain law abiding residents of the nation. If you are of a mind that eventually the public will forcefully rebel, be sure to read Mao on guerrilla warfare. As rebels, your gang would not swim in a sea of sympathizers.

        • 2Asux, don’t stop posting on my finances’ accord. I make great money and know when to stop spending it (that is three, BTW.) And, unlike your fearless leader, the Bern, I don’t steal my hand-outs from other people, either.

          It’s good to hear you stay well versed. Me, too. I read all kinds of Leftist and anti-gun blogs, articles, documents, and threads, and just set back listen to all the folks like you jabber on.

          I know what you are doing, and rest assured, I’m doing the same, as well. I know what is up, hence, why I used the term earlier “ideological subversion.” It’s not rocket science – all you have to do is open your eyes.

          Just remember, blowback is a real thing, and it is a b*tch.

        • 2Asux, you have become the pure and absolute embodiment of a troll. Keep up with the fascism and ignorance. It’s suits you well.

        • You do know the difference between “ignorance” and “stupidity”, right?

          Ignorance is lacking, or refusing to accept facts, knowledge, information (from the root word “ignore”). Stupidity is to accept the facts, knowledge, information and do nothing about it.

          Ignorance is not “unknowing”.

          As I was schooled on this blog earlier, “troll” simply churns the situation just for fun. While there is a certain, low-level, amusement reading all the pro-gun stuff, my intention is not simple entertainment. I care about making the society nicer, calmer, gentler, and safer for everyone. My postings are designed to challenge your sloganeering and skin-deep understanding of the world around you, regarding gun rights and gun safety.

        • Ha! Yes, now these stupid gun people will see the intellectual superior that is 2Asux. And all will bow before my glory. Heh.

          Where the hell is mom with my lunch?

          MOM! Where’s my lunch?

          Be right there, dear.

          Well, hurry up, mom! I’m hungry!

          Heh. Maybe I can just eat these leftover Cheetos from last night.

          I really need to finish that robot girlfriend. Maybe I’ll do that tomorrow. Heh.

          Stupid gun people.

          Mom! Bring my lunch down to the basement! I’ll eat it down here! I’m doing important things on the computer!

          OK, honey!

          Heh. I’ll show those… Hey, wait a minute. Did I leave the Speech Recognition Software on?

          Computer off! Computer o…

        • You’re persistent postings show a composite of the two qualities. You don’t come here to learn or to challenge our ‘sloganeering’, that’s cute by the way, but you come here to spout the same all tired lies and ‘facts’ that are typical of your ilk. Everything you have said is easily refuted and has been. That is what makes you a troll and rightfully so. Oh yeah…MOM, THE MEATLOAF!

        • I challenge “sloganeering” because that’s all you got. Ultimately, to your side, all lives are expendable (to borrow a phrase) against the idea that there are some steps that could be taken to improve safety (and I have outlined them several times) that don’t require giving up guns. But sloganeering will ultimately give the gun safety side the victory because refusal to think is a dead end.

        • ‘Why would there be the need for a trial if it is universally illegal to possess a gun, for any reason?’

          Because you might be innocent. Because the cop might have planted a gun in your car because you’ve been sleeping with his wife. The current administration has been using the IRS, FBI, OSHA, EPA and even the US Fish and Wildlife Service to persecute people for starting 503(c) corporations that oppose it’s agenda. And you want them to have a go to jail without a trial card?!? Have you ever thought about emigrating to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea? I think you’d like it there. No guns.

        • In the prior comment I noted that “throw down” guns might happen, but would quickly be spotted and the practice ended. besides a “planted” gun (which is mostly Hollywood), what innocent reason would there be to have an illegal gun? How would a law-abiding citizen “innocently” come into possession of a gun? Keeping a gun after universal banning would be a crime on its face. Being caught with a gun would be a second crime. There are all sorts of conditions where “alleged” fits the status of the suspect. but if possessing a gun, either the person did or didn’t. But to use a favorite of the gun rights crowd, a few people falsely charged is a small price to pay.

        • Also, I seem to remember reading through the comment sections on a few articles several months ago and your handle was there. The 2Asux that I had read was staunchly pro-2A. I think, look ma Ima tinking, I would be safe in assuming that an anti-gun extremist didn’t happen upon this site and absorb their handle. Such probability is low. So it leaves me to conclude that you are the same sly devil who either has had a TBI or you think, there it is again, that what anti-gunners say is hilarious and you scribble it here just for the purposes of incitation.

        • Of course a troll claims he isn’t a troll. Duh. Especially since a growing number of studies point to trolling as a sign of mental illness.

          When I worked at the prison all thiose inmates, without exception, were framed or railroaded. They dindunuffin. Just like 2asux.

        • I accept that many of you view any thought contrary to your prized notions is objectionable, and labeled “trolling”. I accept your definition as being evident; doesn’t make it correct. Just a synonym for “close-minded”.

        • Who is this imposter?

          You are not me. I am me. We are not we. Only me is me.

          Fools! You will lick the tant of gun sense! I will bring the fight to you! I will destroy your souls! I will prove forever and now to be prophet of gun sense for all time!

          They will build temples to my honor. They bow before my intellect. All will know here and now…

          I AM THE TANT OF GUN SENSE!!!!

        • Infidel! You dare to mock the prophet of the gun sense!

          My mother Shannon Watts and father Leland Yee will have your head on stake for this injustice.

          We will bring gun sense to the world!

        • MOM DID I TAKE MY MEDUCIN TODAY!!

          WUT DO U MEEN NO!!

          UR SUPOZE TO HELP WITH THAT SHIT BITCH

          GODAMMIT ITS HAPENIN AGAIN!!

          WHO AM I!!

          I BEE TORE APART

  14. I think we are whistling past the graveyard if we don’t acknowledge the danger to the Republic if the left takes over the Senate and the White House. If they are enabled to gut the 2nd Amendment and try to enforce their gun grab on states such as Texas/Idaho/Wyoming/etc etc we will see a real crisis. Fact is numerous states will not comply with what they deem an unconstitutional action against the 2nd Amendment. My friends this election is huge, we are seeing a replay of the 1850’s where half the nation does not understand the hornets nest they are about to kick. I travel the nation for my job and speak to folks in every corner of the country of every political persuasion and it has been universal that the urban “blue” contingent REALLY cannot understand or imagine that anyone would take up active resistance over the 2nd Amendment. That disconnect is frightening, dangerous, and potentially deadly to this nation.

  15. Look, lets cut to the chase, shall we?

    The SC’R’OTUS is acting in the capacity of the Federal Government getting to decide what the scope of and/or the limitations (lol) of that same Federal Govt’s own power is.

    The SC”R’OTUS has been illegitimately doing so since 1803 and the poison-ground and rotten false tree grown in that poison ground is bearing more and more rotten fruit as the decades roll by.

    The Constitution did not delegate nor enumerate the power of ‘Judicial Review’ to the Federal Judiciary, period.

    The SC’R’OTUS usurped that non enumerated non-delegated power in the 1803 Marbury vs Madison case wherein Chief ‘Justice’ Marshall ‘declared’ that the SC’R’OTUS somehow magically had that power, despite it not being delegated and enumerated in the Constitution as is clearly required.

    It is critical to realize the above factual information.

    Now, Amendment X clearly states:

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

    So then, according to the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, the SC’R’OTUS has abrogated Amendment X and usurped the power of ‘Judicial Review’, quite unconstitutionally.

    The SC’R’OTUS has since applied the doctrine of ‘Stare Decisis’ to its illegitimate and unconstitutional usurpation and now looks to ‘precident’ and past ‘case law’ to determine constitutionality and to ‘interpret the Constitution. The plethora of clear textually unconstitutional decisions, going back to that event, are used to decide constitutionality.

    This amounts to one of the most glaring examples of chicanery and false ‘authority’ used to bypass a constitution, in history.

    So then, the bottomline is this.

    The Federal Govt has staged a de facto and successful coup on the Constitution and on its creators, the several States via the People. The Constitution has been abrogated systematically and the actual Constitution has been utterly voided.

    On to the topic of this original post.

    Amendment II is clear and it very clearly lays out an absolute prohibition on govt from infringing upon the pre-existing Liberty to keep and bear arms, despite what former SC’R’OTUS domestic enemy Scalia opined.

    He was no hero, he was every bit as complicit in gutting the Bill of Rights as every other such ‘justice’ has been who deliberately twisted the text of the Constitution.

    Shall NOT Be Infringed.

    The SC’R’OTUS has indisputably gutted this Amendment as well as the remainder of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution’s limits on govt.

    It is what it is, so quit pretending it is something else.

    They will continue to do so until the long-game comes to fruition.

    Let’s say that tomorrow, the SC’R’OTUS rules that Amendment II is archaic, from another age, and that it protects no individual right nor any right to arms for a militia, since we have the National Guard and according to them, this serves the purpose and function of Amemdment II……..

    Are you panty-wearing pussies going to roll over and declare that such a ruling is ‘constitutional’ since the purported ‘final arbitor’ of all things constitutional has now legitimately spoken?

    If so, you are a clear domestic enemy.

    If not, then why the hell do you accept smaller/lesser abrigations and usurpations that are just as clearly textually unconstitutional and that are constantly foisted on us by an unconstitutonal usurped exercise of the power of Judicial Review/Judicial Fiat?

    The SC’R’OTUS is NOT the ‘final arbitor’ of my rights nor of yours.

    Fact is, most of you are simply either woefully ignorant, quiveringly ‘ferfraid’, willingly submissive or actually tacitly supportive of these govt actions which are utterly constitutionally-illegitimate, and supportive or accepting of the methods of your own destruction.

    You squabble over ‘how much’ unconstitutional govt usurpation is okay and over whether the ‘left or the right’ or the ‘Republicans or the Democrats’ will be more benevolent masters and which of these false created ‘teams’ will abrogate less of your fundamental essential Liberty.

    When it comes down to it, most people will submit and go along, to avoid being declared ‘a criminal’ or ‘a terrorist’ and chancing punishment…many will even curry favor and inform on those who refuse to comply and who resist, revolt or otherwise stand up against tyranny in whatever form or fashion they choose…because, ‘it’s the law’.

    That’s what history tells us and that’s how the human-dynamic always plays out.

    It always rests on that nebulous and purported III% who, for whatever inate drive they have within them to be free, are willing to put it all on the line in defense of LIfe, Liberty and Property against totalitarian tyranny.

    News flash!!! America is not special nor is it going to be any different here than it is and has been all around the world throughout history.

    What made us special was the Constitution and Bill of Rights and we have willingly allowed that to be strid from us.

    We squandered it and are currently largely peopled by scared ignoramus pussies, minions, sysophants and/or subserviant herd-beasts.

    We will simply reap what has been sown, with most submitting to what will be grim-slavery and this (perhaps) III% being forced to undertake a task that is nearly insurmountable and which will be the death of most of them.

    Nothing but rapid widespread non-compliance, resistance, refusal and massive nullification by the several States and the People will prevent it.

    Any bets on that happening, given the current paradigm coupled with historical evidence?

    And so continues the fall of the Republic and the burgeoning totalitarianism of ‘new america’.

  16. Last time I checked, a shoulder-fired SAM is not a personal defense “arm” unless of course, you are being unlawfully assaulted by assorted flying machines of death. So no, everything that fires a projectile is not treated as the same, and as such, is not protected by the 2nd amendment.

    Try as I might, I can’t find any specific words in the 2A that describes the manner of carrying firearms. It’s not there. It does say that you have the right “to keep and bear arms” not how you should keep and bear those arms. The right to open carry, or conceal carry is reduced to a personal, petty outrage when compared to the core principle that the 2nd amendment represents.

    • A bit unclear, here. Are you proposing that any weapon available to government should be available to residents of the country? Are you proposing there should be some limits on the kinds of weapons?

      • I thought I was very clear. A shoulder-fired, SAM(Surface to Air Missile) does not qualify as a personal defense “arm” as it relates to the limits of the 2nd amendment. So no, every form of “arms” is not, and should not be available to the general population, or protected by the 2nd amendment, …especially when it involves HE. What part of this is unclear? RPG’s, LAW’s, or TOW’s…are not Sig’s, Glock’s, or 1911’s.

        • Where in 2A does it say that “arm” has anything to do with “personal defense”?

          The only thing that 2nd explicitly cites as an example at all is militia. Now, have you seen what typical militia today looks like? I’ll give you some examples: Taliban is a militia. YPG is a militia. Donbass separatists in Ukraine are a militia.

          And all these guys use RPGs like crazy, for example, and occasionally MANPADS. Hell, even tanks sometimes.

          So if you’re a bona fide 2A absolutist, RPG is totally covered by 2A.

        • Thanks.

          Under your reasoning, the central government could have banned long rifles, cannon and explosives from being held by the states, and the militias. This rendering would mean the government gets to determine what weapons the citizenry can use to overthrow a tyrannical government that out-guns the states and the local militias. Not sure that notion comes anywhere near what the founders intended.

        • This is a very important point – thank you for bringing it up.

          People focus on the effect of 2A on the individuals, because that’s where the right is most often infringed. But, equally important, it’s what enables National Guard and State Guard to be properly equipped without interference from the feds.

        • “…it’s what enables National Guard and State Guard to be properly equipped without interference from the feds.”

          A nice thought, but is it reality? “The feds” are the single source of all National Guard equipment. The founders would never have accepted the notion that the central government could “nationalize” the state militias and make them part of the federal government military. I would think the ability of the feds to “call-up” the National Guard (who are then paid by the federal government, not the states) as a means to deny the people of the states to defend themselves against the central government.

        • Remember that the states still have State Guard / State Defense Forces. Well, not all of them do, but they all can, and if some don’t, that’s their loss. Those forces can’t be federalized, and their chain of command terminates at the state governor. So that’s the true organized state militia.

          With respect to dependency on the feds for equipment, sure, but that’s not a 2A thing. 2A doesn’t guarantee you a gun, it merely says that you have a right to procure one and keep and bear it. Similarly, with respect to states, it doesn’t guarantee them any particular capability level for their militia, but the right to have one in principle. How much funding it gets, and where it gets equipment from, is a different matter.

        • I guess I just can’t cover all the bases. Not familiar with the term “State Guard / State Defense Forces”. Do you know where they exist? Any other information to look at?

        • Wiki has a decent article, and a map indicating which states have them.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force

          Note that in many states, these are only de jure military – i.e. they operate under military law and have the appropriate subordination for on-duty members, and they get the same exemptions vs civilians for carrying firearms etc while on duty; but in practice they’re not actually armed and don’t do military training, and focus on civil defense / emergency response.

          That said, even in those states, they can be reactivated in full military capacity, and their members are expected to be ready to fulfill that duty. And a few states, at least, do the right thing and keep the military training – usually by combining training exercises with National Guard.

          Personally, I think that there is a lot of potential there, that is unfortunately not realized. Really, for any unorganized militia that exists on their territory, the first thing that state officials should be asking is, “why aren’t these guys volunteering for the SDF?” – and see what they can do to change that.

  17. Meh-I think we are screwed.Keep your powder dry-and demo boy-what do you have against people from south of Chiraq? Did someone steal your boyfriend?

  18. First of all, let me say that I emphatically, to depth of heart, believe in the Absolute Right to Self-Defense.
    I believe that the Core intention of the R2KBA SHOULD BE for that Right to a Self-Defense.

    However, I do not believe the US Constitution is perfectly written document as it was written by man.

    I have seen good writing and I have seen bad writing.

    Some legislatures PURPOSELY produce their writing in a vague form to leave themselves more wiggle room to allow aggressive Prosecutors to interpret the law to suit their own political agenda.

    I believe the 2nd Amendment is UNCLEAR and VAGUE at best at expressing the R2KABA as BOTH an individual right for self defense and a group right to help protect the Sovereign States against the new
    federal government they just created.
    IT was a legitimate fear that this new government had the potential to become just as tyrannical as the government they just freed themselves from, specifically the mighty Great Britain.

    We know the Framers intended all adult white male citizens to be armed, but it is NOT clearly written in the Constitution why?

    The context does appear (my interpretation) that it is intended as a group right to protect the People of the Sovereign STATES from a potentially tyrannical government they just created but not necessarily as an individual right.

    Further, my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is that it is merely a ban on the new Federal Government, they called the General Government from impeding on the People’s General Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
    The problem is that if they truly did believe that right was both and Individual Right and a Group Right why did they not put it in ALL their State Constitutions, such as Pennsylvania?

    They did not.

    You can argue that they considered the Individual Right was so obvious, they did not consider the need to put in writing, (such as eating) but I could easily argue they purposely left it vague to leave themselves some wiggle room on the issue.

    The problem is that Supreme Courts can come and go and give their interpretations of the day and actually over-ride previous Supreme Court decisions.

    This problem would still exist even if ALL of the Justices were conservative on that issue.

    The problem will NOT go away UNTIL the 2nd Amendment is either re-written entirely or amended or a new constitution is drafted, correcting the problem.

    A unanimous Supreme Court today is NO Guarantee of a even a Majority tomorrow.

    And then there are the States which I believe, have the authority to Nullify any Supreme Court decision.

    It will all be one big mess, until they make me the King and I get to decide.

    • Amendment II analogised and contextualized, simply…

      ‘A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food, shall not be infringed.’

      So then, who has the Right to food, whatever food is chosen or how it is presented, prepared and eaten?

      A ‘well balanced breakfast’ or ‘The People’?

      Where is the ‘authority’ for govt to infringe on the what, when, where, why and how of that right?

      I see a prohibition.

      • The breakfast/food analogy falls flat. I think it pales in comparison to another.

        Robert Levy offered this parallel to the “collective right”, or “Only the militia is allowed to keep and bear arms by the 2 A.” interpretation:

        “Suppose the Second Amendment said,
        ‘A well-educated electorate being necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.’
        Is there anyone who would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read?”

        Levy illustrates the flaw in the “interpretation” that “the right of the Militia”, and not “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is stated and guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment. The militia, originally defined as free, White, able-bodied male citizens, 18-45 years of age (Militia Act – 1792) is a sub-set of the “people” (far less than 50% since women – among many other categories of people – were excluded from the militia).
        That spurious “interpretation” of the 2nd Amendment ignores the plainly expressed right of the citizenry in general (“the right of the people”), merely because of the mention of a benefit which accrues co-incidentally to the country (a ‘properly functioning’ – the contemporaneous meaning of ‘well regulated’ – militia drawn from the body of armed citizens will be available for the defense of the new Federal Republic) because of that broad-based “right of [all] the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms”.

        The analogy is apt. Consider the parallel to the structure of the 2nd A. Levy offers:

        “A well-educated electorate”, a sub-set of “the people”, citizens who are qualified to vote, (again less than 50% since women, minors, and a host of other people were excluded from the electorate) results in a co-incidental benefit to the country (an educated, informed electorate will presumably vote wisely, as opposed to an ignorant electorate voting foolishly, to the preservation of the self-governance of the free state) because of that broad-based “right of [all] the PEOPLE to keep and read books”.
        In neither the 2nd Amendment, nor Levy’s parallel, does the mention of a co-incidental benefit to the nation involving a sub-set of “the PEOPLE” (Militia, or electorate) justify the restriction of that “right of [all] the PEOPLE” to ONLY that sub-set of the people (Militia, or electorate) mentioned in that stated benefit.

    • Nice.

      When considering the time and circumstance spawning the constitution, keep in mind that already existing militias included both individual arms, and community arms. The militia were organized of individuals.

      The guard against tyranny of the central government was the ability of the states to muster their own military forces against any forces created by the central government. Note – the militias were not, were not subject to “call up” as active military forces of the central government (so much for a National Guard as the “militia” contemplated by the founders; such nonsense would have been considered great non-sense by the founders (“no man can serve two masters”).

      All the individual colonies had militias. Some were “armed” mainly by a menagerie of privately held weapons. Some depended mostly on community owner/controlled weapons. Not every state would have found it necessary to put armaments in their state constitutions because it was a given that when called upon, the militia would report to the armory and be issued standard weapons, not expecting the individual to contribute their own arms.

      Under the thinking of the times, the states would handle military affairs of the state internally (law enforcement, indian wars, rebellions). There was no concept of having federal forces acting to enforce state internal affairs. There wasn’t event a concept of petitioning the central government for assistance; it was commonly petitions between interested/affected states that would have been used whenever a single state needed assistance. This kind of thinking is almost completely unimaginable in our day and time; states depending on themselves and sister states without involvement of the central government.

      The RTKBA was an individual right in the days of the founding. Some colonies were dependent on individuals to “arm” the militia (some communities had armories, some did not). It was such an obvious fact, the founders would not have seen it necessary to detail in a document designed to control the central government (the details of militia were left entirely to the colonies/states). The central government was on notice it could do nothing to interfere with how the states “manned” their militias. We read about the “federalism” of the early days, but we have no way to really grasp the way of life that existed. States were truly sovereign, coordinating among themselves, interacting with a central government in rare circumstances. Thus, the early states had different rights delineated; some maintained theocracies, or prohibited certain religious denominations from being formed/propagated. It was so different in those days as to be considered bizarre today.

  19. Contrary to what Charles Nichols wrote, nothing within Heller stated that “there were several categories of laws which the Court explicitly said were not affected by the [Court’s] decision: 1) Possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, 2) Laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in what the Court called ‘sensitive places’ such as schools and government buildings and 3) Laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Rather, what the Court explicitly stated was that such prohibitions were “presumptively lawful,” as those issues were not before the Court and the Court did not have the benefit of briefing or their historical context. The Court even acknowledged such by stating that “there will be time enough to expound upon the historical justifications for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those exceptions come before us.” Based on the author’s statement, the current challenge to the Postal Service’s prohibition on possessing a firearm merely on the postal property (Bonidy v. USPS, et al – http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles15-746.htm) should be upheld as constitutional since the Government has declared it a sensitive place. Please do not put out information which is contrary to the Court’s holding and detrimental to our cause.

    • Parsing words is a fair game, but not particularly informative.

      When a court declares an activity “preemptively lawful”, that court acknowledges it is informed about the activities, and though not specifically before the court in the case at hand, that court declared the activity “lawful”, “approved”, without rebuke. There is no requirement that the court examine only the written details of the case, but also the impacts of known circumstances, the consequences of the ruling. The reason SC ascribed the implications of Heller to the dustbin is because even a 5-4 verdict would have been impossible, otherwise. The downside to doing that is the sort of continued chaos we see. The court could have properly declared that Heller presented a clear “infringement” on the constitution, and that any infringement, of any kind was not permitted. There was no legal mandate to not do so; it was politics of the court. To seen politics in action, review Brown v. Board, where individual judges lobbied others to rule unanimously because of the great implications of a split decision.

    • Joshua Prince, Esq. proves that the only thing passing the bar proves is that one has passed the bar.

      I’ve never said that the post office and post office parking lot at issue in the Bonidy case are sensitive places.

      The post office building is a government building which clearly makes any prohibition on bearing arms in a post office building “presumptively lawful” according to the Heller decision. It should not have surprised any lawyer who is even halfway competent that Bonidy lost before the Court of Appeals, at least as far as the post office building is concerned. The parking lot is a different matter. Bonidy’s lawyers must have come to the same conclusion because they have chosen not to challenge the prohibition on firearms in the post office building and have limited their appeal to the the post office parking lot.

      Joshua Prince, Esq., is confused about the difference between presumptively lawful categories of laws and laws which are categorical exceptions to the Second Amendment right, The first example I gave in my article was an unqualified categorical exception:

      “The first limitation the Court placed on the Second Amendment right is that the right does not extend to unlawful or unjustifiable purposes. For example, there is no Second Amendment right to commit armed robbery.”

      Hollywood fiction scenarios notwithstanding, nobody would claim that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to commit armed robbery. “Armed Robbery” is a category of conduct which falls outside the scope of the Second Amendment and, all other things being equal, armed robbery is, without qualification, a categorical exception to the Second Amendment Right.

      “Presumptively lawful regulatory measures” are just that – Presumptive. A presumption can be rebutted, even successfully rebutted. Bonidy failed to do so when it came to the post office building and failed to do so before both the district court and the court of appeals.

      Bonidy’s cert petition will be denied for the simple reason that even if one believes that the Circuit Court decision conflicts with Heller and McDonald, there is no SCOTUS Rule 10 split. If you think that doesn’t matter then read the dissents to the denials of cert in Jackson v. San Francisco and Friedman v. Highland Park Illinois. No circuit split in a Second Amendment case equals a denial of cert.

      Which isn’t to say that a circuit split would result in a granting of cert. SCOTUS routinely leaves circuit splits unresolved.

      Bonidy’s cert petition and the brief in opposition to cert can be read at my website -> http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=1642

      • As I stated, your article said it was an absolute, not that it was presumption. So, before you go casting stones, you might want to look in the mirror. You also may want to take the time to read Heller again, given your statement that concealed carry is not protected by the 2nd Amendment. Justice Scalia craftily did write into Heller that concealed carry is protected within the right to Keep and Bear Arms. I’ll even give you a hint…read the portion where the Court defines what constitutes bearing arms.

        • Joshua Prince, Esq., are you really a lawyer or do you just claim to be one on TV?

          Presumably you are referring to Justice Scalia’s citation at 2793? Even if one were to assume that “bear” meant to carry *concealed* in one’s clothing or *concealed* in one’s pocket (the citation never says “concealed” in either) the Heller Court recognized that there is not an unlimited right to bear arms and said so explicitly in several places.

          It is obvious to even a first year law student that no SCOTUS decision has ever recognized an unlimited right. In the First Amendment context. Death threats, slander, liable, fraud, extortion, counterfeiting all involve speech and expression and some religions practiced human sacrifice. No rational judge would say that these are protected under the First Amendment.

          There are speech and religious practices which are protected under the 1st Amendment and there are speech and religious practices which are not protected under the 1st Amendment.

          The 1st Amendment does not protect all speech and religious practices. The Second Amendment does not protect “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

          As concealed carry (with certain exceptions such as in the home and for travelers while actually on a journey) does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment, concealed carry can be generally prohibited in public without infringing upon the Second Amendment right.

          Justice Scalia said in the Heller decision that people who carry weapons concealed in public are cowards and criminals. Four justices sided with Justice Scalia in the majority and the four judges in the minority applauded the majority for saying that there is no right to carry weapons concealed.

          All nine justices were unanimous that there is no Second Amendment right to carry weapons concealed and yet you claim that Justice Scalia “craftily” hid a concealed carry right he explicitly repudiated multiple times in his decision?

          Perhaps you should sell your secret decoder rings on eBay and hand them out to free to all Federal judges as not a single one of them has ever discovered this concealed carry right you claim that Justice Scalia so craftily hid in his Heller decision.

          While you are at it tell the class what law school you graduated from so that prospective students can avoid going there.

        • Well both you and Nichols have interesting websites. Love the bit coin donation for the author of this article. Between you 2 and 2Asux it’s been entertaining. If endless…if I get in trouble maybe I’ll call one of you LOL.

  20. Hey guys. This is 2Asux and I would just like to take a moment to tell everyone that I have seen the error of my ways. I here by announce my full support for Donald J Trump as President of the United States!

    Trump 2016!

    TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP!

    • If it weren’t so serious, A Trump presidency would be an entertaining period in our history. Gotta give the guy credit. But many political disasters were due to characters once thought to be merely entertaining.

        • That was not me! I am me!

          I’m ready to ring in the era of gun sense.

          No longer will the shoulder thingies that go up be the order of the day. No longer will 30 rounds per second clip-o-mags be allowed in civilian hands. No longer will 85,000 children an hour die by the hands of the NRA. No longer will people be able to buy ammunation on the Internet with their Food Stamp cards. No longer will the gun loving masses kill and eat baby kittens.

          We will rule the day! We will fight for peace. And we will ban all those who oppose. We will strike down those who do not agree. We will call them racist. And bigots. And xenophobes. And liars. And cheats.

          Because what else better do we have to do?

          Yes! We will remain strong and true to the course. And we will be awash in the shame of our enemies.

          And we will slaughter their women! Eat their men! And rape their cattle!

  21. Hillary is on TV while I am typing this, and she is nauseating. The media is just fawning all over her. She wants to do a Saul Alinsky on the NRA of course and isolate it. Of course all of this is reasonable and sensible.
    If you want to keep your guns, you had best vote Republican, even if they sort of suck,

    • I’m assuming that Ralph is butt-hurt about there not being a Second Amendment right to concealed carry although I suppose he could fall into one or more of the other disqualifying categories such as being mentally ill or a convicted felon.

      Every single Federal court has recognized that the Heller decision placed limitations on the carriage of arms, notably embracing prohibitions on concealed carry and, of course, the McDonald decision held that the Second Amendment as defined by the Heller decision is the right that it applied against the states and local governments.

      Ralph is free to provide pinpoint citations to those Federal cases which held that there is a right to concealed carry under the Second Amendment but he won’t because there aren’t any.

      Here are a few pinpoint citations to a few Federal cases which read the Heller decision to mean exactly what it said about concealed carry not being a right:

      Hightower v. City of Boston, 693 F. 3d 61 – Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit (2012)
      “Under current Supreme Court precedent, Hightower cannot make out her Second Amendment claim as to the concealed weapon aspect of her revoked license, as she must for her as-applied challenge to succeed. Under our analysis of Heller, as follows, the government may regulate the carrying of concealed weapons outside of the home.
      In Heller, the Court explained that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited” and noted that “the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under Second Amendment or state analogues.” 128 S.Ct. at 2816. We have interpreted this portion of Heller as stating that “laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons” are an “example[] of `longstanding’ restrictions that [are] `presumptively lawful’ under the Second Amendment.” United States v. Rene E., 583 F.3d 8, 12 (1st Cir.2009) (quoting Heller, 128 S.Ct. at 2816-17 & n. 26); see also Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281-82, 17 S.Ct. 326, 41 L.Ed. 715 (1897) (observing that “the first 10 amendments to the [C]onstitution” protect rights that are “subject to certain well-recognized exceptions” and stating, in dicta, that the Second Amendment right “is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons”).[9] Licensing of the carrying of concealed weapons is presumptively lawful, and Hightower makes no serious argument to the contrary.” Id at 73-74.

      Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81 – Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit (2012)
      “Notably, Chandler and Reid conflict with Plaintiffs’ position, at least in part. Plaintiffs contend that a state may choose to ban open carrying so long as concealed carrying is permitted. But both Chandler and Reid suggest that open carrying must be permitted. The Reid court explained:
      Under the provision of our constitution, we incline to the opinion that the Legislature cannot inhibit the citizen from bearing arms openly, because it authorizes him to bear them for the purposes of defending himself and the State, and it is only when carried openly, that they can be efficiently used for defence.
      1840 WL 229, at *5; see also Chandler, 1850 WL 3838, at *1.” Id at [fn 13]

      Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426 – Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit (2013)
      “New Jersey’s longstanding handgun permitting schema is not an anomaly. Many recent judicial opinions have discussed historical laws regulating or prohibiting the carrying of weapons in public. See, e.g., Peterson v. Martinez, 707 F.3d 433*433 1197, 1201 (10th Cir.2013) (“extending” the recognized Heller exceptions to cover regulations on the carrying of concealed firearms, stating that “[i]n light of our nation’s extensive practice of restricting citizens’ freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections”).” Id at 433

      Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F. 3d 865 – Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit (2013)
      “The district court permanently enjoined enforcement of section 5-306(a)(5)(ii) of the Public Safety Article of the Maryland Code, to the extent that it conditions eligibility for a permit to carry, wear, or transport a handgun in public on having “good and substantial reason” to do so. Necessary to the entry of the court’s injunction was its trailblazing pronouncement that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense extends outside the home, as well as its determination that such right is impermissibly burdened by Maryland’s good-and-substantial-reason requirement. See Woollard v. Sheridan, 863 F.Supp.2d 462 (D.Md.2012). Because we disagree with the court’s conclusion that the good-and-substantial-reason requirement cannot pass constitutional muster, we reverse the judgment without needlessly demarcating the reach of the Second Amendment.” Id at 868

      National Rifle Ass’n v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 700 F. 3d 185 – Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit (2012)
      “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. 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 …. [N]othing 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.” Id at 193

      National Rifle Ass’n of America, Inc. v. McCraw, 719 F. 3d 338 – Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit (2013)
      “For example, the Court said, “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.”” Id at 346

      Moore v. Madigan, 702 F. 3d 933 – Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit (2012)
      “And a state may be able to require “open carry” — that is, require persons who carry a gun in public to carry it in plain view rather than concealed. See District of Columbia v. Heller, supra, 554 U.S. at 626, 128 S.Ct. 2783…” Id at 938

      US v. Fincher, 538 F. 3d 868 – Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit (2008)
      “[T]he 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.” Id at 873

      Peterson v. Martinez, 707 F. 3d 1197 – Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit (2013)
      “With respect to Peterson’s claims against the Denver sheriff, we conclude that the carrying of concealed firearms is not protected by the Second Amendment or the Privileges and Immunities Clause.” Id at 1201

      Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller II), 670 F. 3d 1244 – Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit (2011)
      “The Court identified other historical limitations upon the scope of the right protected by the Second Amendment. For example, it noted “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.”” Id at 1252

      Peruta v. County of San Diego, 742 F. 3d 1144 – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit (2014) (vacated)
      “To be clear, we are not holding that the Second Amendment requires the states to permit concealed carry.” Id at 1172.

      “The majority’s first — and crucial — mistake is to misidentify the “conduct at issue.” Chester, 628 F.3d at 680. The majority frames the question as “whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.” This is certainly an important issue, but it is not the question we are called upon to answer. The Plaintiffs are not seeking a general license to carry firearms in public for self-defense — they are seeking a license to carry concealed firearms in public.” Peruta dissent at 1181.

      “Although all the nineteenth-century cases cited by the majority cautioned against restrictions on the open carrying of weapons, none of them — except the discredited, outlier Bliss — suggests that restrictions on carrying concealed weapons implicate the Second Amendment. See Chandler, 1 La.Ann. at 490; Nunn, 1 Ga. at 251; Reid, 1 Ala. at 616-17. And nothing in these cases or Chase’s Blackstone even hints that a restriction on carrying concealed weapons would become invalid if restrictions were placed on open carry. Rather, they suggest that restrictions on concealed carry are always valid, while there are limits to restrictions on open carry.” Peruta dissent at 1195

      Note that it is “the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller” which is binding on all states and local governments via the McDonald decision. Not the imagined right to carry concealed which the Supreme Court in Heller clearly states is not a right under the Second Amendment.

      http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

      • How does any of that mean that there is no right under the 2nd Amendment to concealed carry? You say that as if what the courts say is the end of the debate, that they are the authority on the subject or something. Many would argue that for one, Heller got some things flat-out wrong, such as the bit about weapons in common use. Two, what a majority of courts say means nothing if the reasoning is baseless. You could have 2,000 years worth of legal precedent and it can be overturned in one ruling if the reasoning it was grounded in was wrong.

        • Kyle, I have never read any court decision which got everything right and judges often pull things out of their hats and write them down in their decisions. But as a matter of law, the interpretations of the Second Amendment in the Heller and McDonald decisions are the law.

          The prohibitions on the use of concealed weapons predate the Second Amendment by a century. The prohibitions on merely carrying weapons concealed go back nearly two hundred years. In all that time there has been but a single court decision which held that there is a right to concealed carry, not under the Second Amendment, but under its state constitution. The court said in that decision that the people of Kentucky are free to change their constitution to prohibit concealed carry, they did.

          Part of the problem is that few people know how to research case law regarding the longstanding prohibitions on concealed carry or even the history of concealed carry.

          Any juror hearing a murder case when the Second Amendment was enacted would have convicted anyone who used a concealed weapon to kill his opponent in an otherwise fair fight of murder. Murder was not pardonable. If the arms were openly carried in an otherwise fair fight then the worst one could be convicted of was manslaughter, which was pardonable, assuming that a jury would even convict.

          The first state to go “shall issue” concealed carry was Florida in 1987. Even if one were to assume that state legislatures were allowed to define Second Amendment rights and if one were to assume that the Florida legislature thought that concealed carry was a Second Amendment right, the people who voted for the Second Amendment and the people who voted for the 14th Amendment did not think there was a Second Amendment right to carry weapons concealed in public.

          There isn’t even an historical anecdote suggesting that there was ever a right to concealed carry under the Second Amendment. If there had been then why didn’t any of the lawyers who argued concealed carry cases across the nation for the past 200 years reference them?

        • Kyle, I have never read any court decision which got everything right and judges often pull things out of their hats and write them down in their decisions. But as a matter of law, the interpretations of the Second Amendment in the Heller and McDonald decisions are the law.

          Yes, they are law, but that doesn’t make them right. Thus while they may not say anything about concealed carry being a protected right, that doesn’t mean that it isn’t.

          The prohibitions on the use of concealed weapons predate the Second Amendment by a century. The prohibitions on merely carrying weapons concealed go back nearly two hundred years. In all that time there has been but a single court decision which held that there is a right to concealed carry, not under the Second Amendment, but under its state constitution. The court said in that decision that the people of Kentucky are free to change their constitution to prohibit concealed carry, they did.

          So what? The logic doesn’t hold that concealed carry isn’t a protected right. That just means that at the time, they didn’t protect it. Yes, multiple state constitutions mention explicitly that the carrying of concealed weapons can be limited. But that is because open carry at the time was considered the norm. Today, you have governments wanting to ban open carry as well because the views on them are opposite—today, open carry is viewed with suspicion and concealed carry is considered the norm. Concealed carry advocates during the time of the founding would have been viewed by many as open carry advocates are today.

          Part of the problem is that few people know how to research case law regarding the longstanding prohibitions on concealed carry or even the history of concealed carry.

          Any juror hearing a murder case when the Second Amendment was enacted would have convicted anyone who used a concealed weapon to kill his opponent in an otherwise fair fight of murder. Murder was not pardonable. If the arms were openly carried in an otherwise fair fight then the worst one could be convicted of was manslaughter, which was pardonable, assuming that a jury would even convict.

          Yes, because at the time, as said, concealed carry was viewed highly suspiciously. But they also didn’t have the restrictions on arms then that we have today. Open carry was considered quite normal then. Today, courts like to uphold restrictions on concealed carry, while ignoring that open carry at the time was quite normal.

          The first state to go “shall issue” concealed carry was Florida in 1987. Even if one were to assume that state legislatures were allowed to define Second Amendment rights and if one were to assume that the Florida legislature thought that concealed carry was a Second Amendment right, the people who voted for the Second Amendment and the people who voted for the 14th Amendment did not think there was a Second Amendment right to carry weapons concealed in public.

          We don’t know what their views were, because even though they were likely against concealed carry, they very much would have been fine with open carry. If they could have seen into the future and seen that today, the views would be the opposite, with concealed carry viewed as the acceptable normal way to carry a firearm and open carry as the suspicious, extremist way, they might well have changed their tune.

          Gun control courts want to uphold concealed carry bans while also upholding open carry bans.

          There isn’t even an historical anecdote suggesting that there was ever a right to concealed carry under the Second Amendment. If there had been then why didn’t any of the lawyers who argued concealed carry cases across the nation for the past 200 years reference them?

          Multiple reasons:

          1) The Second Amendment was not seen as protecting gun rights at the state or local level until the 20th century

          2) In those times, open carry was considered much more acceptable.

          3) In the 20th century, many lawyers were against courts that didn’t even accept the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to arms, let alone trying to argue it protected an individual right to carry them in any capacity

  22. I have been an attorney since 1981 and in law enforcement before that . This Supreme Court appointment is the most important issue in my lifetime. If a radical anti-second amendment person is appointed then the second amendment will be gone from the original Bill of Rights. If they can do away with a constitutional provision by a ruling in one single case, then they can do away with any of our rights. So, yes it is about guns, but really about our entire way of life. If a new judge rules to ban guns–and a single new judge can make that call, then our whole concept of the rule of law is gone and America as we know it will no longer exist. So really a vote for any Democrat for president is a vote against all traditional rights. Voting Republican this time is the ONLY way to save your gun rights….duh?

    • Let’s get down to the brass tacks, k?

      So, Phil, what are you gonna do when, not if, the SC’R’OTUS eventually utterly abrogates Amendment II?

      Of course, you seem to have staked out the ground that the SC’R’OTUS is the final arbiter of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, so it logically follows that you would turn them all in when, not if, ordered to do so under ‘color of law’.

      Serious question, because you seem to represent the conventional wisdom here in new america and I want to plumb the depths of such a mindset.

      • If gun owners are the “most law-abiding” residents of the country, then expect them to remain so. Let’s take the argument out of the courts, and put it squarely in the political process….any “constitutional right” is subject to the political process. So, should the second amendment be repealed entirely, what becomes of law-abiding residents then? Upon repeal, “the people” will have spoken. Every amendment to the constitution has been accepted (the law-abiding complied) by the minority as law of the land. If the second amendment is repealed, everyone with a gun would instantly become felons.

  23. But the majority of the Court also held that the right is not unlimited. The Court said that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

    Technically, this shouldn’t allow for any infringements on the right to arms. It says “any weapon whatsoever,” not “any arms whatsoever.” We know from Justice Blackstone that at the time it was understood that the right to arms and self-defense did not entail a right to any type of weapon. The right to arms is a right to the particular class of weapons known as arms, which are weapons that a person can use for private warfare and that are not destructive, but which can kill. So example, RPGs and grenades would not be included, even though they can be carried by a person, but pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc…very much are. Arms includes firearms, such as pistols, rifles, and shotguns. As such, the government can restrict and ban certain classes of weapons, but not arms, and thus, all so-called “assault weapons bans,” magazine capacity restrictions, etc…should be struck down as blatantly unconstitutional.

    I agree that many of these court cases brought against the assault weapons bans and magazine capacity restrictions and so forth have been foolish. I do not know why the people bringing them have thought that the courts would strike them down. Yes, you get lucky here and there on something more minor, but on major laws like that, the courts almost universally will uphold them, and that thus just creates legal precedent that hurts our case.

    • For what purpose was the second amendment passed as a modification to the constitution? The single reason for the amendment was prevention of the central government from becoming the sole possessor of military force. That prevention was designed to always remind any and all members of the central government that the people retained, and would exercise, the right to force the central government to remain within its (central government) charter.

      The only way to possess a believable, viable military force was to keep available to the state militias/citizens those weapons that matched or over-matched the weapons (of all types) of the central government. If such were not the case, the second amendment is pointless, ridiculous, inane and moot. If the government that is subject to military resistance can define the means of that resistance, the amendment is pointless, ridiculous, inane and moot.

      Attempting to somehow make the distinction between “weapons” and “arms” relevant to the meaning of the second amendment is “irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial”.

    • A window into the mindset and understanding of our founders:

      “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…. [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)

    • For what purpose was the second amendment passed as a modification to the constitution? The single reason for the amendment was prevention of the central government from becoming the sole possessor of military force. That prevention was designed to always remind any and all members of the central government that the people retained, and would exercise, the right to force the central government to remain within its (central government) charter.

      The only way to possess a believable, viable military force was to keep available to the state militias/citizens those weapons that matched or over-matched the weapons (of all types) of the central government. If such were not the case, the second amendment is pointless, ridiculous, inane and moot. If the government that is subject to military resistance can define the means of that resistance, the amendment is pointless, ridiculous, inane and moot.

      Attempting to somehow make the distinction between “weapons” and “arms” relevant to the meaning of the second amendment is “irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial”.

      The government doesn’t define the means of the resistance, as the definition of arms is pretty clear, and they were distinguished at the time from munitions and ordnance. Only today do we use the word “arms” to refer to all weapons of war, ranging from “nuclear arms” to “arms embargo,” etc…at the time though, arms had a much more narrow meaning. Applied to today’s times, it’s pretty easy to see that so-called “assault weapons” are arms, whereas explosives and so forth are not. Nor does the people’s possessing of arms mean they cannot resist a governmental tyranny. The government can have superior weapons and training, but it can never match the people in terms of their sheer numbers. An armed population can cause all manner of hell for even a modern military. There are only so many places that you can place soldiers and do strikes and attacks and so forth.

      “Arms” at the time did not refer to warships, such as the ship-of-the-line. It did not refer to biological weapons, such as when the British used smallpox infected blankets against the Native Americans. Similarly, in modern times, it doesn’t refer to modern warships, or other modern vehicles of war, such as tanks and aircraft. It did not refer to explosives at the time, which were defined as munitions, and it did not refer to ordnance.

      Nor was the sole reason for the amendment to stop a government monopoly on force. It was also to protect the individual right to self-defense.

        • “To expand on that, basically “arms” then referred to what we call “small arms” today.”

          Not actually. The states (via their militias) held the same level of weaponry as the central government, including artillery and explosives. The militias may not have had a Navy, but the revolution was largely a land war. Nothing in the constitution can be construed as prohibiting the states from creating their own navies and air forces to counter those of the central government.

        • The state governments could hold munitions and ordnance, but not the individual people. Remember, the militia isn’t tied to the states either, it is a creation of society.

      • The constitution was not designed in anyway to constrain the individual. That was left to the colonies/states. The constitution applied solely to the authorities and limits of government. Read the document from a position of those days. The constitution never contemplated a situation where states needed permission from the central government for much of anything.

        The second amendment was not protecting the right of states to oppose the central government with a ragtag bunch of backwoodsmen with squirrel guns; the right for lots and lots of squirrel guns to “raise hell” with the central government. The intent was that the states could mobilize all their military capability (of whatever type) to overthrow a tyrannical central government. Reasoning that some weapons are “reasonably” prohibited the citizenry means there acceptable, common sense, restrictions on calibre, feed action, rate-of-fire, classes of individuals who can be permitted by the central government from possessing firearms. Thus, the right of the people to protect themselves from a rogue government can be reduced to BB guns.

        Can’t ignore the completely bizarre condition of a government that can fatally cripple the very instrument (“we the people”) designed to keep a rogue government in check. The founders lived through the slow slog of being unprepared to mount an formidable military force against the king’s armies. Nothing in their writings after the fact can be read to mean once again relying on inadequate means to protect themselves from government; enduring once again the insecurity of a long-term, fragile and inadequately provisioned rebellion where the outcome would be in great doubt from the beginning.

        • You’re making it sound like the Second Amendment is a protection of a right of states and not individuals. It was not about the right of states to resist a tyranny, but rather the right of the people themselves, to resist a tyranny, which is an extension of their natural, individual right of self-defense. Protecting of arms prevents the government from implementing such “reasonable” restrictions. There can be reasonable restrictions on weapons overall that are not considered arms, but not on arms (“small arms” in modern parlance) themselves.

          Can’t ignore the completely bizarre condition of a government that can fatally cripple the very instrument (“we the people”) designed to keep a rogue government in check. The founders lived through the slow slog of being unprepared to mount an formidable military force against the king’s armies. Nothing in their writings after the fact can be read to mean once again relying on inadequate means to protect themselves from government; enduring once again the insecurity of a long-term, fragile and inadequately provisioned rebellion where the outcome would be in great doubt from the beginning.

          They would have mentioned munitions and ordnance as well I would think if they had meant to include those. They did not. In addition, as said, warships (i.e. vehicles of war), biological weapons, etc…were not considered arms. Even in the colonial times where each male citizen was required to have a musket, powder, shot, etc…each citizen was not required to have, even if they could afford it, a cannon and explosives.

        • >> You’re making it sound like the Second Amendment is a protection of a right of states and not individuals.

          It’s not an either-or. The entirety of the Bill of Rights, when it was originally enacted, is a protection of the rights of both states and people against federal government (and not protection of rights of people against their respective state governments).

          In fact, it’s even explicit in the wording of the 10th:

          “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

          Note, by the way, that the states come first in this formula. In other words, the people get the rights not reserved to the states, but states get the first dibs.

          In particular, before 14th Amendment, states could, and did, pretty much arbitrarily regulate freedom of speech and RKBA. Some states even had religious qualifications for public offices – some still retain these clauses in their respective state constitutions, even though they’re inoperable because of 14A.

        • The argument that the founders meant only to allow the people “small arms” renders “the people” incapable of dealing with a fully equipped army. The “arms” included whatever was needed to be able to overthrow a rogue government. Think about it. What would be the effectiveness of “the people” left with only “small arms” against the English army? The citizenry as militia could not be denied any armament, including a navy. As to the individual right, the constitution is not about what the people can do, but what the government cannot do. If the individual states wanted to restrict gun ownership by individuals (and some did), that was a state matter. The central government could neither further restrict gun possession, nor could the central government command that individuals not be restricted. Could individuals in those days privately own cannon? Some did, and brought with them to the militia. Could the local and state militias own cannon? Yes. Could states build their own navies? Yes.

          The logistics question of today is how do “the people” form and exercise a modern militia, complete with “heavy weapons”? Lacking that capability (not permission), how effective can the militia be in overthrowing a rogue government?

          The Hollywood notion that a bunch of bumpkins with only personal weapons beat back the world’s greatest army is just pure fiction. The idea that successful revolutions anywhere in the world overthrew a government is also Hollywood. In every case, the rebels captured “heavy weapons” and used them. What we lack in this country is an organized and effective militia.

        • The states have first dibs on powers, but the rights protected in the Bill of Rights are individual rights, and hence the individual comes first. The Second says nothing about states, it says the right of the people, i.e. individual right.

        • If it was a purely individual right, it would say “persons”. For example, the 5th:

          “No person shall be held to …”

          is unambiguously individual-only. But the 2nd says “people” instead. Now, to make it clear, it doesn’t mean that it’s not an individual right. But clearly there is a distinction here, and the obvious conclusion is that it is meant to also be a collective right. Which makes sense given the rationale of the amendment – if you have the right to RKBA individually only, but don’t have a right to then organize into armed groups (by states or otherwise), then you don’t really have a militia.

        • The argument that the founders meant only to allow the people “small arms” renders “the people” incapable of dealing with a fully equipped army. The “arms” included whatever was needed to be able to overthrow a rogue government. Think about it. What would be the effectiveness of “the people” left with only “small arms” against the English army? The citizenry as militia could not be denied any armament, including a navy. As to the individual right, the constitution is not about what the people can do, but what the government cannot do. If the individual states wanted to restrict gun ownership by individuals (and some did), that was a state matter. The central government could neither further restrict gun possession, nor could the central government command that individuals not be restricted. Could individuals in those days privately own cannon? Some did, and brought with them to the militia. Could the local and state militias own cannon? Yes. Could states build their own navies? Yes.

          The logistics question of today is how do “the people” form and exercise a modern militia, complete with “heavy weapons”? Lacking that capability (not permission), how effective can the militia be in overthrowing a rogue government?

          The Hollywood notion that a bunch of bumpkins with only personal weapons beat back the world’s greatest army is just pure fiction. The idea that successful revolutions anywhere in the world overthrew a government is also Hollywood. In every case, the rebels captured “heavy weapons” and used them. What we lack in this country is an organized and effective militia.

          There is no way that a tyranny with a military of equal capability as the U.S. military would able to establish control over a population armed with small arms. Why do you think the idea of invading Iran is considered so loony? It is because the country is 80 million people. Look at how close Assad came to falling, had it not been for Russian and Iranian aid. There is simply no way to establish martial law over an armed popilation.

          The military needs logistics to function. Armed people can mess with the supply lines, destroy railroad lines, bridges, electrical lines, etc…they also can use their small arms to capture the bigger weapons from the enemy.

          There is nothing Hollywood about an armed population checking a tyranny.

        • “There is nothing Hollywood about an armed population checking a tyranny.”

          Other than the fact that it has never happened? No rebellion was ever successful using only “small arms”. The rebels always use the most powerful weapons they can capture. It is one reason some revolutions take so long; the rebels do not start at parity with the government forces.

        • Other than the fact that it has never happened? No rebellion was ever successful using only “small arms”. The rebels always use the most powerful weapons they can capture. It is one reason some revolutions take so long; the rebels do not start at parity with the government forces.

          I’m not saying the rebels only use small arms, I’m saying that no government can oppress a population armed with small arms, because they can use said small arms to capture bigger weapons and also cause all manner of hell for the government. For example, how when the Nazis would take people and line them up and shoot them, and toss their babies in the air and shoot them before they hit the ground, etc…that can’t happen when the people can shoot back.

        • The Nazis were quite successful putting down rebellions; Hitler’s bunker coup attempt. The Nazis also put down two rebellions (rebels with small arms) in Poland. I’m just pointing that it is folly to have notions that a rag tag bunch of American rebels will be able to overthrow the government. Rebellions in small, disorganized countries are not the template. When was the last successful rebellion against a modern, mechanized government armed force?

          Simply, the guns in the hands of the citizenry do not deter a rogue government. The overwhelming encroachment by our government is so far beyond what the founders would have tolerated as to be completely irreversible by arms. It is only through political battles that the government is held in check, at all; and the republic continues to decline. It is the frog in the kettle scenario, and it is working.

        • >> When was the last successful rebellion against a modern, mechanized government armed force?

          If you define “success” as “defeating government forces”, then Libya.

          Syria would also have been one, most likely, if not for Russian intervention.

          Houthis in Yemen are still doing pretty well even though they’re faced by foreign armies backing their government.

          Donbass has been pretty successful in that they managed to hold ground. Also a good example of how a bunch of ragtag militia with SKS and shotguns can first acquire proper small arms, and later even artillery and tanks, by taking over government military facilities (yes, they had Russian arm supplies too, but not during the first couple of months when it was all just getting started).

          Going further back, Kurds in Iraq have been holding ground against Saddam since 1991, and are still holding it today.

        • All the groups you mention have heavy weapons, and they are not facing modern, mechanized states such as the US, France, Germany, etc.

        • Huh? Define “mechanized states” then

          Syrian rebels are facing Syrian Army, that has tanks, artillery and aviation.

          Houthis are facing Saudi army, with all the same stuff, except there’s more of it. As far as armament goes, Saudis were never cheapskates – look up what they have in service.

          Donbass separatists are facing Ukrainian army with all the same stuff except for aviation, which they used during the first few months, until Russians started supplying the rebels with AA weapons. Ukrainian forces have even repeatedly used tactical ballistic missiles such as Tochka – look it up.

          As far as heavy weapons go, most of these groups didn’t have heavy weapons when they started. That’s the whole point. For example, in Donbass, it was initially civilian-legal firearms, mostly hunting rifles and shotguns, many of them old SKS and Mosins, and some Saigas and Veprs with capped mags etc – and a few AKs from the black market for “special forces”. And acquired better gear as they went – first small arms (AK74 and AKS74) by capturing police stations, then artillery and tanks by capturing army bases and depots.

          Also, states like Germany and France don’t see armed rebellions precisely because they’re well off. If they were to see a rebellion, it would be preceded by a period of deterioration and decline of the country overall, leading to conflict. I doubt that at the end of that period, their respective armies would be that much better Ukrainians or Saudis.

        • I did list modern, modern, mechanized states. The nations you listed are not modern, their militaries are not professional, experienced or particularly effective. They have modern weapons, but would be no match for major US or European forces. Once the US military and all the para-military police forces are deployed against a disorganized mob of citizens with only small arms, the matter will be resolved rather quickly in favor of a rogue government. (I put no credence on the idea that a significant or game-changing number of those forces will defect).

        • I would argue that a government such as you describe could never actually throw its full military against its citizenry. A significant part, if not the majority, of the military would rebel.

          In fact, that even happened in Syria, hardly a liberal democracy.

          So rebels only need to have small arms to hold out long enough to force the government to crack down on them with military force, so as to trigger defection of parts of that military to the rebels.

        • I have zero faith that any noticeable number of police or military will defect, ever. Again, Syria is not modern, it is not truly mechanized, its military is not professional. Sand castle governments and armies are not the model for armed rebellion in this country. A primitive people may hold out a long time against a primitive government, buy you way underestimate the force our government can bring to bear quickly; there will not be time to hold out long enough to mount a serious threat back.

        • The Nazis were quite successful putting down rebellions; Hitler’s bunker coup attempt. The Nazis also put down two rebellions (rebels with small arms) in Poland. I’m just pointing that it is folly to have notions that a rag tag bunch of American rebels will be able to overthrow the government. Rebellions in small, disorganized countries are not the template. When was the last successful rebellion against a modern, mechanized government armed force?

          The Nazis also ran into some major problems from armed resistance as well. Read about Max Manus for example. Poland I don’t think really works as the resistance movements there were small. The Nazis would never have been able to take over control of Poland had all Poles been in possession of arms. And while overthrowing a tyranny might be questionable, it would be virtually impossible for a tyranny to establish any kind of military control over the people when they are armed.

          Simply, the guns in the hands of the citizenry do not deter a rogue government. The overwhelming encroachment by our government is so far beyond what the founders would have tolerated as to be completely irreversible by arms. It is only through political battles that the government is held in check, at all; and the republic continues to decline. It is the frog in the kettle scenario, and it is working.

          The citizens being armed very much deters a tyranny. Again, why do you think it was stated as nuts the idea of invading Iran? It isn’t just because of the Iranian military. It’s because how would the U.S. even establish control over such a large population. Yet we are to believe a tyranny would be able to run roughshod right over an armed population that is over 4x the size of the Iranian one.

          Why is it that ISIS has proven so difficult? Remember when ISIS was just 40,000 people? And many were saying, “Well then, just bomb the hell out of them,” yet then we started hearing from numerous people about how, “Air power is too limited, we could never bomb them to oblivion, the only way to really deal them damage is to send in ground troops…” so the most powerful nation in the history of the world is unable to bomb out 40,000 man terror force. You really think then a tyranny with a military equivalent to the U.S. military could establish military control over all 300+ million American people? Bombing wouldn’t work any better, and there’s only so many places one could bomb. There are only so many places one could place troops, and only a fraction of those troops are the actual highly-trained ones for combat (infantry).

          Armed citizens could wreak all manner of havoc with the supply lines.

        • The fear of Iran was based on the casualties being unpalatable to the public. The US managed to conquer two entire nations in WW2. But then, we had a people burnished in hardship, able to endure what needed to be done.

          There is no fear on the part of the US military concerning armed citizenry of Iran, just as there is no fear of same by the Iran government.

          There were no successful rebellions under Nazi control. Germany was defeated by combined armies of the world, not armed, disorganized, under-gunned citizens. For its time, Germany was a modern, mechanized state with a large and competent army. That condition, fighting a two front war AND putting down two rebellions demonstrates the result of such disparate force. The American Revolution was fought between peoples just about evenly matched in weaponry.

        • There is no fear on the part of the US military concerning armed citizenry of Iran, just as there is no fear of same by the Iran government.

          What do you base that on? For one, most of the Iranian population probably isn’t armed, which is part of my point. If it would be considered nuts to try and control a population 80 million people who don’t have easy access to arms, imagine if they all had AR-15s, AK-47s, bolt-actions (sniper rifles), shotguns, etc…and such a population would be a HUGE threat to the Iranian regime.

          Colin Powell back in the 1990s testified before Congress on why the United States should not send ground troops into Eastern Europe at the time, with one of the reasons being that the people there are armed and our soldiers would be getting shot at from all different directions.

          An armed population very much can serve as a check on a modern military.

          There were no successful rebellions under Nazi control. Germany was defeated by combined armies of the world, not armed, disorganized, under-gunned citizens. For its time, Germany was a modern, mechanized state with a large and competent army. That condition, fighting a two front war AND putting down two rebellions demonstrates the result of such disparate force. The American Revolution was fought between peoples just about evenly matched in weaponry.

          The German army in WWII was about 80% horse-drawn. And even then, it depended on Blitzkreig because it did not have enough fuel for any kind of long, drawn-out warfare. Had Europe’s peoples been armed and able to fight back, it could have been a much different war for the Germans. And Germany ran into a lot of trouble in trying to control the peoples it had conquered, as initially conquering is different from maintaining control.

        • Regardless of which period in history is chosen, there has not been a successful uprising against a well equipped, disciplined, modern army.There isn’t likely to be one in the future. You may see 10s of millions of armed desperadoes somehow fending off the combined military and police of this nation. I see a society too fat, too lazy, too comfortable, lacking general coping skills, lacking experience in enduring hardship (the veterans of all wars since korea do not equate to 10s of millions, and most military service is not on the pointy end, anyway). Our hope lies not in armed insurrection, but in mustering enough political power to keep in check a society run amok. So far, the traditionalists are not winning the game.

  24. >> Six of those “Republicans” have already said that the Senate should hold confirmation hearings without even knowing who Obama’s nominee is going to be!

    This is idiocy. Of course the Senate should hold confirmation hearings “without even knowing the nominee”. The whole point of the hearings is to look at the nominee, examine their record, and either confirm or refuse to confirm. If no-one whom Obama submits is a suitable candidate, then Republicans should hold hearings, vote to refuse, and explain why they refused that particular person. Obama then gets to make another appointment etc. They can do that until November if they really want.

    But to refuse to hold the hearings outright, regardless of who is nominated, is just plain retarded, and contrary to what the process is supposed to be. It would be kinda like Congress refusing to vote on a budget in advance, period, regardless of what the proposed budget actually is. It’s their moral and constitutional obligation to do the hearings.

      • Yeah. And if there are no Congress elections ever again, there’s no chance that it’ll ever lose the Republican majority in either chamber.

        And maybe, if Republicans get to elect a president come November, we could ban future elections for that position, as well. That way 2A is secure for sure!

        Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds now?

        Republican senators were elected by their constituents and given a mandate to, among other reasons, to approve SCOTUS nominations.

        Whatever they do on that, they should just shut up and do it. If they go “squishy”, as you say, then that is what it is, and people who elected them should elect someone less “squishy” next time.

        As it is, you’re basically complaining that applying regular procedures that are written into the founding document of the Republic result in an outcome that you personally don’t like, and so they shouldn’t be applied.

        • Chill, Cujo.

          Take a breath. There is nothing in any founding document that lays-out the time line or the detailed procedures for dealing with a presidential nominee. The only rule is that the president may appoint, with the advice and consent of the senate, certain offices. Nothing requires a president to make such appointments, make such appointments in a timely manner, or ignore the opportunity to make appointments.

          Internal senate rules are not part of the constitution, and can be followed, ignored, changed at will of a majority in the senate. You can believe that somehow the constitution mandates immediate consideration of presidential nominees, but there is nothing to support that belief.

          General elections for president are directed in the constitution.

  25. Any weapon so dangerous that it cannot be trusted in the hands of citizens is a weapon so dangerous that it cannot be trusted in the hands of governments.

    • That sounds nice on the surface, but it really is way oversimplified. It really depends on the government. Liberal democratic governments that are structured with checks and balances and have protections for human rights, can very much be trusted with weapons that individual citizens cannot. Authoritarian governments, that is a different matter.

      • “Liberal democratic governments that are structured with checks and balances and have protections for human rights, can very much be trusted with weapons that individual citizens cannot. ”

        We allegedly have a government such as you describe, and it cannot be trusted. “Trusted” means one can be assured the government will not turn its weapons on the citizenry; ours already has done so.

  26. “So what did the so called gun-rights groups do in the seven years, seven months and seventeen days between the Heller decision being published and the death of Justice Scalia? They chose the path of deception, cunning, guile, conceit and lying.”

    Mr. Nichols understands that the NRA does not want to win, it would put them out of “business.” When Moore v. Madigan was handed down by the U.S. Federal Appeals Court in Chicago in Dec. 2012, it was unexpected. The Moore decision, based on the McDonald decision, totally struck down Illinois UUW concealed weapons statute, which had been on the books since the IL criminal code of 1963. The Court gave a stay of six months, basically forcing the IL legislature to pass some sort of carry bill.

    Having the FIFTY YEAR opportunity of a lifetime, the worst NRA state lobbyist of all 50 states in America did what he knew how to do: lie, cheat, and sell out. Todd Vandermyde claimed loudly that they “had” to pass the “NRA backed” bill with Duty to Inform, because there was no “cliff.” We would get the Chicago Machine bill, and there would be no open carry after the stay ended.

    Under the 1963 IL criminal code, generally only police could carry concealed, anytime, on or off duty, and outside their jurisdiction, anywhere in IL. Duty to Inform does not apply to cops or off-duty cops, and retired cops carrying under the LEOSA signed by George Bush do not have DTI. The purpose of the Duty to Inform is so that any cop, anywhere, anytime, may Stop and Frisk armed citizens, then disarm and kill them with legal cover.

    That’s why NRA contract lobbyist Todd Vandermyde put Duty to Inform in Rep. Brandon Phelps HB183 carry bill. Making the DTI criminal with penalties of 6 MONTHS or 1 YEAR in jail means that the minute you leave your house, anyone out of uniform or posing as a cop can walk up to you and demand to know if you are armed. If you have a carry license, you must answer or be subject to arrest. Since IL DTI is criminal, the cop has the excuse to use force. Since the licensed citizen is armed, the cop can now escalate instantly to deadly force, murdering the citizen and claiming they “resisted arrest.”

    Look at the face of NRA contract lobbyist Donald Todd Vandermyde and you can see the real face of “your” NRA: sick and evil rat scum that feast on the blood of citizens they sell out to police unions, setting up the legal infrastructure for a criminal police state where armed citizens can be detained and murdered at the whim of plainclothes death squads, police impersonators and serial killers. Send in your life membership!

  27. “The Constitution shall never be construed…to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams

    “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people…To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them…” – George Mason

    “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms…To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike…how to use them.” – Richard Henry Lee

    “[The Constitution preserves] the advantages of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…[where their] governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

    – James Madison

    “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
    – Thomas Jefferson

    “Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion…in private self-defense.” – John Adams

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *