The Heller Decision’s ‘In Case of Confrontation’ Language Could Help Expand Gun Rights Still Further

Heller Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms Supreme Court Decision MacDonald

courtesy saguarofirearmsplus.com

By MarkPA

There has been much debate about the Second Amendment grounded in several significant Supreme Court Decisions:  D.C. v. Heller, McDonald v. City of Chicago, and Caetano v. Massachusetts. But what do these decisions stand for? What do they portend for the future? This may develop from the proposition articulated in Heller: “. . . in case of confrontation.”

More than any other statements in these decisions, these four words convey the expansion of the scope of the Second Amendment for the foreseeable future.

In paragraph “c. Meaning of the Operative Clause” the Court explained:

“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” [author’s emphasis]

The Heller decision was simple enough: “We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.” Dick Heller gets his gun. That’s all. The immediate implication is that every other Tom, Dick and Harry living in the District of Columbia may exercise their Second Amendment rights and get their guns, too.

“In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.” [author’s emphases]

Dick Heller’s prayer for relief was answered, and that is all the Court was asked to do in his cause.

The Court’s stirring summary caps this conclusion as follows:

“We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26.

“But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibi­tion of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.

“Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.” [author-supplied paragraph breaks]

Much of the first 63 pages of the Heller opinion serves to explain these conclusions, marking some of the “metes and bounds” of the “right” guaranteed by the Second Amendment. In so doing, the Court took care (as is typical of majority opinions) to distinguish the elements of the “right” it found from those not relevant to the case before it.

Illustrative of such distinctions, it explained the military scope of “the right” but made clear that this opinion was not to be construed to include machine guns. Dick Heller’s gun was a pistol, not a machine gun. It wasn’t necessary to resolve questions concerning machine guns, short-barreled shotguns or rifles or “Any Other Weapon” (a type of arm defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 that is so obscure it didn’t even enjoy an honorable mention in the opinion.)

In fact, the holding doesn’t even tell us much about the “right” it staked out as squarely within the scope of the Second Amendment. The holding speaks of the “handgun” as protected without defining that term. Perhaps the Court thought it meant whatever it is that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms defines a “handgun” to be. We don’t really know, other than what might be inferred from the fact that Dick Heller’s gun was a pistol.

Likewise, the holding speaks of a “home” without defining that term. Is it the owner’s singular domicile, or any residence? Is it a fixed or “floating” place such as a houseboat? Does it include the “curtilage” (porch, garden, etc.)?  Nor do we have any idea what they meant by “operable for the purpose of immediate” self-defense; notwithstanding that self-defense was the core purpose of the right secured by the Second Amendment.

So, why make so much out of the phrase “in case of confrontation”? Because these four words carry the meat of the Court’s finding in Heller. Where’s the beef? It’s right there, in those four words.

There has never been any doubt that an innocent citizen has the right to use lethal force in defense of the life or limb of self or others. Whatever weapon one might have at one’s disposal, she has a right to use under the doctrine of “the lesser harm”; be that a club, cutlery or a gun.

What has been undetermined for much of the past 200 years is the right to keep and carry some such an “arm” wherever she might be or go. Having found that a “handgun” is an arm, may she keep it in her home? May she carry it outside the home? To what degree would any such keeping or carrying be her right? The Heller opinion certainly did not go so far as to say she may carry a handgun everywhere she might go.

Heller stands for the proposition that she may—at least—carry in her home for purposes of self-defense in case of confrontation. The Second Amendment-enabled citizen may keep and carry in contemplation of a contingency that is not immediately upon her. And where may such a contingency arise? Just about anywhere. What do these observations portend for the future? We can’t know with any degree of confidence; yet we can imagine the next steps.

Over-the-road truck drivers typically sleep in the cabs of their trucks. Safety regulations require that they rest periodically. Drivers routinely “time out” and must stop to rest along roadsides, at rest stops, or industrial parks where there is little in the way of public security. A truck’s sleeper cab is, in such circumstances, indistinguishable from the typical citizen’s “home”.

Even when a truck is not equipped with a sleeper cab, drivers are compelled to stop and rest, sleeping as well as they may. Moreover, they are vulnerable to breakdowns on lightly-traveled roadways. And such is the case for any motorist.  It’s not difficult to foresee a case involving interstate travelers, especially truck drivers, asserting the right to keep/carry a handgun in their vehicles.

Once a traveler reaches a destination, she would expect to dismount from her vehicle and traverse the distance from a parking space to an office, shop, warehouse where she may come under the mantle of protection of the proprietor of that place. When travel is during business hours, recourse to security resources (public police or private guards) may be available; but such isn’t always the case.

Truck drivers need to make deliveries at odd hours of the night. Medical services workers need to travel poorly-lit and lightly patrolled parking lots and walkways. Upon returning home at odd hours, a commuter likewise may need to cross a parking lot or walkway to reach the sanctuary of her home.

One can no more discount the contingency described by “in case of confrontation” in such circumstances than the Court could in the case of Dick Heller’s home. And so, we may anticipate, future cases in the genre of Heller, McDonald and Caetano, will offer the Court the opportunity to extend the scope of the right to carry beyond one’s home to one’s vehicle, workplace and the walkways between these points.

As it considers such cases in turn, the opportunities for complexity soar far beyond those few the Heller and McDonald cases needed to consider. The potentially conflicting rights of the proprietor of a workplace are just one example.

In any case, these three decisions point in the direction of expanding the scope of the right to carry “in case of confrontation.”

 

‘MarkPA’ is trained in economics, a life-long gun owner, NRA Instructor and Massad Ayoob graduate. He is inspired by our inalienable rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and holds that having the means to defend oneself and one’s community is vital to securing them.

This post was originally published at drgo.us and is reprinted here with permission. 

comments

  1. avatar Bloving says:

    “where well-trained police forces provide personal security,”
    They do? To whom? Where is my 24-hour security? Is he asleep in his patrol car outside? Why have I never met him?
    🤠

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      did you check your pocket? It’s a good place to keep one if you can.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “did you check your pocket? It’s a good place to keep one if you can.”

        *Politicians* you want firmly in your pocket, not a cop…

        *snicker* 😉

  2. avatar Illinois_Minion says:

    So the SCOTUS stated: “…where well-trained police forces provide personal security…”

    So does this fly in the face of the “so long as we go home safe” mantra of police?

    1. avatar Nigel the Expat says:

      Seems contrary to the “no specific duty to protect” outcome of:

      • Warren v. District of Columbia and
      • Castle Rock v. Gonzales

  3. Last I heard the US Supreme Court is going to “Pass the Buck” to a Lower Federal Court and let them make the decision.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      That has been the standard practice for the last two years or so.

  4. avatar Sam I Am says:

    “…the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.”

    What else can this mean other than “Safe Storage” laws are unconstitutional? The requirement that loaded firearms must at all times be in a safe, or on the body would seem to be a logical reading of Heller. I would truly like to see some government attempt to twist the clear language into permission for laws that require a gun owner to remove and store a firearm prior to taking a bath/shower. Or even changing clothes.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Sam I Am,

      Progressive courts would most assuredly allow secure storage laws to stand when applied to a secure storage method that enabled immediate access.

      One possible example would include a wall-mounted safe with voice recognition. In the event of a sudden home invasion, the home owner could shout the “open sesame” command en-route to the safe which would open before his/her arrival. Such a safe would thus not interfere with immediate access.

      Don’t get me wrong. I would never endorse such an arrangement because there are multiple possible technical glitches that could render such a safe inoperable. I am merely pointing to an option that Progressive courts would support.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Progressive courts would most assuredly allow secure storage laws to stand when applied to a secure storage method that enabled immediate access.”

        Which is what would make it such an entertaining production. Legally, there would need to be a split among districts in order to get before the SC to hear the twisting. But just getting there would be interesting. The word “immediate” is problematic, also. If the threat is “imminent” (which is more urgent that “immediate”?), and there is time to look away from the threat, or move from the threat to the gun safe, is the threat “imminent”? And what time frame elapses between “imminent” and “immediate”? Indeed, what does “immediate” mean?

        See the fun?

        1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

          Shall not be infringed would include the use of a gun locked away in a safe. My 2 children were raised in our home with rifles etc. accessible but were taught not to touch them and they didn’t.

      2. avatar Blkojo says:

        Yet a renter of a home or apartment or ghetto-fab trailer probably is not allowed to have such storage.
        The people should be allowed to store their firearms as they see fit for their particular situation, wherever there home is and however such home is defined.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      The Ninth Circuit has already approved a SF ordinance that required a loaded handgun to be in one’s immediate possession or unloaded and locked up, even if you live alone. I don’t think I have to tell you what the Supreme Court did with the petition for cert….

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        I don’t disagree. My observation is Heller was moot upon issue. Waiting for DC to again defy Heller, and add defiance to the appellate court ruling, as well. There is no personal or group penalty available to remedy such defiance.

  5. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Heller does not expand any “gun rights”. In small measure, it removes unlawful, unconstitutional restrictions. To restore something to its original dimensions cannot be identified as expanding that something.

  6. avatar Shawn says:

    The Heller decision is null. Ignored all the time. At this point it might as well never happened.

    1. avatar CC says:

      Heller while, imperfect, was overall a victory.

      For one, every single gun control lobby group supported DC in Heller: Showing that they oppose handgun ownership even for background checked people and exposing everything they claim about their goals is a lie

      1. avatar Blkojo says:

        2020 presidential candidate…2024 at the latest…Kamala Harris signed on that D.C. was correct pre-Heller. Forewarned is forearmed.

        1. avatar George Rockwell says:

          That dumb bitch has about as much chance of becoming president as I do.

    2. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

      “The Heller decision is null. Ignored all the time. At this point it might as well never happened.

      Really?

      Before ‘Heller-Mcdonald’, you could not have a handgun legally in NYC or Washington DC.

      Now you can in both places, and concealed carry is shall-issue in Washington, DC, for Cripe’s sake!

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        ” Before ‘Heller-Mcdonald’, you could not have a handgun legally in NYC or Washington DC.”

        “Now you can in both places, and concealed carry is shall-issue in Washington, DC, for Cripe’s sake!”

        So far.

        That will change with a Dimowit victory in ’18 and ’20.

        Lacking any enforcement mechanism of SC rulings (see Pres. Andrew Jackson), with Dimowits in control, we will see a resurgence of draconian restrictions, abetted by a Dimwit DOJ.

        1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

          OK, I see what you’re getting at, and I agree.

          The Leftists consider it a ‘Holy Crusade’ to gut the 2A whenever and wherever they can.

          So, we need to get SCOTUS to grant cert. on adding teeth to laws that subvert the 2A?

          And will that more than likely end up in an eternal battle of suit-counter-suit, until the Leftists inevitably regain control of the Court and gut the 2A as they see fit?

          Because if that happens… (dot-dot-dot)

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “And will that more than likely end up in an eternal battle of suit-counter-suit, until the Leftists inevitably regain control of the Court and gut the 2A as they see fit?”

          Is this not already borne out in our current circumstance?

          NOTE: During this latest SC session, the SC accepted, for the third time in four years, a case regarding whether union dues were mandatory, and under what circumstances. Three times in four years. When was the last 2A case granted cert? Why is the application of union dues more important than a clearly stated enumerated right? Unions are not a construct of the constitution, and not a concept debated by the founders.

        3. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Unions are not a construct of the constitution, and not a concept debated by the founders.”

          Nor same-sex people and contracts, either, as far as I’m aware…

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Nor …. and contracts, either, as far as I’m aware…”

          Article I, Section 10, Clause 1

        5. By definition of what constitutes a “Union”, the NRA is a “Union”. So you’re going to Outlaw that too…

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “By definition of what constitutes a “Union”, the NRA is a “Union”. So you’re going to Outlaw that too…”

          Please take more care in either your reading, or comprehension. Nothing in my comment had any connection to banning unions of any kind (even civil unions). The union cases the SC took also had nothing to do with banning unions.

          If you re-read the comment, without some sort of knee-jerk reaction to something undefined, a different understanding may emerge. Being unable to think critically makes us look just like the dolts on the left who cannot birth an original thought.

        7. Do you Pay Due’s in the NRA? If so, then it’s a Union. Does the NRA have Political Influence? If so, it’s a Union. When the NRA Boycott’s a Manufacture for NOT complying to NRA needs, how does that differ from a “Strike”…

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Are you not paying attention?

          The definition of “union”, the workings of a “union”, the very discussion as to the utility of a “union” is not under discussion. What is under discussion is the unseriousness of an SC that values adjudicating union dues requirements over resolving issues of enumerated rights.

        9. avatar Danny338 says:

          “Why is the application of union dues more important than a clearly stated enumerated right?”

          Because rendering decisions regarding union dues is unlikely to inspire rebellion and civil war. However, let us not forget that the SC, and consequently all federal courts, was not granted the authority to determine the constitutionality of any law. That is the prerogative of the people, either through a jury or voting.

  7. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

    “It’s not difficult to foresee a case involving interstate travelers, especially truck drivers, asserting the right to keep/carry a handgun in their vehicles.”

    Yes, this needs to be definitively addressed.

    As I understand it now, it really depends where you are. From what I have heard, in Florida it’s no problem. New York, New Jersey, likely a big problem, even if it is locked up out of the driver’s reach.

    But it *must* be addressed for people who travel, especially through Nazi strongholds like NY’s LaGuardia.

    Heller-MDonald took care of the ‘keep’, now it’s time to address the ‘bear’ part of ‘right to keep and bear arms’…

  8. avatar Alex Waits says:

    Well, the language is pretty clear in the Constitution, but well, here we are….

    It wouldn’t be a problem of who can carry what and where if we imprisoned those who would subvert the Constitution under the color of law.

    But “We the People” have allowed it, because ‘guns’, and now its “precedent”.

    In other news, the city of Deerfield, Illinois has enacted an ordinance that would authorize police officers to enter your home without obtaining a warrant, because of an uptick in criminals hiding in in basements. It is just to keep the citizenry safe. If you refuse to allow peace officers entry into your home you will be subject to a 1000 dollar fine per day you refuse the officers entry.

    Don’t like it? Just move.

    :/

  9. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    This discussion is also extremely relevant for people who quite literally live in a recreational vehicle or equivalent — especially for such people who are truly nomadic and wander our nation wherever their whims take them.

    Such a person may never be in a single state long enough to claim residency, whatever that means. (The official legal definition of “residency” and all that it entails is a huge can of worms in-and-of itself.)

    If I could afford such a lifestyle, I might choose to park my RV in central Florida for January and February. Then I might go to central Arizona for March and April. Next up: Utah for May and June. Then Idaho for July to mid August. And on to the Pacific Northwest for mid August to September. Then New Mexico for October and November. And maybe the Gulf Coast for December before returning to Florida for January and February. If that was my life, why should I not be able to carry whatever firearms I want for personal protection?

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      In Peruta v. Gore, Mr. Peruta (who has extensive fire arms training and experience) sued the Sheriff of San Diego when he was refused a concealed carry permit. My Peruta lived part-time in San Diego in an RV. In the trial court, he lost on the basis that California allowed open unloaded carry. He appealed, during the course of which California banned unloaded open carry, which meant that to carry in any urban area, one must necessarily possess a CCW. The original Ninth Circuit panel ruled in his favor, but the majority on the bench disapproved of a de facto “shall issue” rule and on its own motion granted en banc review. Needless to say, the panel decision was reversed, the court specifically holding that there is NO RIGHT to a concealed carry license. So if you happen to live in the SF Bay Area, Los Angeles or San Diego, you have no right to “bear” arms outside the home, since the odds of obtaining a CCW are nonexistent in SF and surrounding counties, virtually impossible in LA, and a tiny bit more favorable in San Diego.

      Do I need to say what happened when he appealed to SCOTUS? No, I didn’t think so.

      As far as I can tell, there is a 4-1-4 split in the Supreme Court on 2A issues, and the guy in the middle has no inclination to go down in history as the judge who “loosed the gates of Hell” by giving the 2A its intended meaning and scope.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “…the court specifically holding that there is NO RIGHT to a concealed carry license.”

        Actually….no. The ruling noted that the SC had not declared in any ruling that a right to concealed carry existed. Without the positive statement, the 9th refused to establish such a right. Since the “right” had not been established by either the SC or 9th circus, it is yet to be determined if the “right” to concealed carry is a constitutionally protected “right”. Conveniently, the 9th refused to set precedent. (Except that “no” is also a decision/precedent).

      2. avatar Mad Max says:

        Hopefully he’ll retire soon (while Trump can still appoint his replacement).

    2. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      I have often thought about the RV life.

  10. avatar former water walker says:

    I’d love to move…BREAKING: Doofus dancing FBI agent charged with a felony😄😄😄

  11. avatar neiowa says:

    “in case of confrontation” The antigun prog is going to ask if you are being “confronted”. If NOT they you can not have a gun on your person. And “case” probably means “instance”.

    If you doubt progtard illogic listen to NPR or CNN as the discuss Presidents Trump meeting with Little Rocketman. Absent hypocrisy and stupidity they got nuttin

  12. avatar cisco kid says:

    The above article is now history and so is the Supreme Courts decision because they have reversed themselves 100 per cent. The Heller Decision is now trash. California has passed laws against both concealed carry and open carry and stated “people have no right to self defense” outside of their homes and it was blessed by the corrupt courts.

    California is in the process of confiscating semi-auto rifles and again blessed by the corrupt courts who pander to public opinion. And ammo restrictions are now on as well.

    The Maryland Assault Rifle ban was ignored by the Supreme Court who refused to hear the case letting stand the lower courts decision to ban them. Again the Heller decision was trashed.

    In Massachusetts a power mad Attorney General with no new law passed ruled by “decree” that she was banning all Assault Rifles and Gun dealers had less than 24 hours to get them off the shelves and again the corrupt courts gave her their blessing. Again the Heller decision was trashed to appease public opinion.

    Yes its not the first time the Corrupt Supreme Court has reversed its decisions about the Second Amendment. In the 30’s they ruled only military weapons were protected by the Second Amendment and now they are siding with the anti-gun fanatics and giving their blessing to ban any and all weapons the States want to ban, military, civilian, police and any weapon they feel needs immediate bans.

    So much for the Constitution. Ask the American Japanese who lost their homes and businesses and were incarcerated in American Concentration Camps how much the Second Amendment protected them. Today gun owners are the newest minority to be trashed. Will they too be put in Concentration Camps when they refuse to turn in their weapons. Don’t laugh we have a corrupt Supreme Court that votes according to popular opinion and has done so down through American History over and over again. Laws that forbid marriage of minorities to whites, laws that prevented minorities from eating in restaurants dedicated to whites only, minorities forced to sit in the back of a buss, drinking fountains for whites only, laws that make it difficult for minorities to vote.

    Just this week the corrupt Conservatives on the corrupt Supreme Court voted to let stand an outrageous discriminatory law in Ohio that takes peoples right to vote away from them if they do not vote within a certain period of years and it was aimed directly against minorities. Yes it was blessed by the Corrupt Supreme Court.

    Yes we live in a joke of a Democracy that only exists in the minds of the unwashed not well learned people who know a Representative Government was created to keep power in the hands of the super rich after the American Revolution and it remains as corrupt and power mad and as discriminatory today as it did back then. A complete blasphemy of true Democracy.

    ATTENTION UNWASHED HERE IS HOW FREE THE U.S. REALLY IS.

    On a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 represents more freedom, the nonweighted average rating for 152 countries in 2012 was 6.96. The level of global freedom stayed about the same compared to 2008, but almost all countries experienced changes in their ratings, with about half of those increasing their ratings and half decreasing.

    The top 10 jurisdictions in order were Hong Kong, Switzerland, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Sweden. The United States is ranked in 20th place. Other countries rank as follows: Germany (12), Chile (18), Japan (28), France (33), Singapore (43), South Africa (70), India (75), Brazil (82), Russia (111), China (132), Nigeria (139), Saudi Arabia (141), Venezuela (144), Zimbabwe (149), and Iran (152).

    Yes only the Unwashed still think the U.S. is the freest country in the world to live in.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      I can’t believe Hong Kong’s rating. Oppose the local government and go to jail. .rite anything opposing or criticizing China’s government and you disappear, perhaps appearing years later to confess to your sins against the state.

      1. avatar Gun Free School Zones are a crime against humanity says:

        How about england. Hurt someone’s feelings and get fined or jail or both. These charts and graphs are dummied up by socialist hacks to cover for the gawd awful mess socialism, communism, fascism(all 3 are the same) have created.

        Wait til all those happy socialist women in france and the rest of the eu have to wear burkhas for their new regimes.

      2. avatar Dave says:

        @GunFreeSchoolZones

        I hope you’re right, but I’m used to too many years of disappointment with this issue. The Republicans were elected to Congress and failed to do anything to protect our gun rights. They promised it and they fucked us so far.

        I believe in accountability. I believe that a politician’s words and actions matter. Trump promised support for the Second Amendment as did the Republicans in Congress. The Republicans failed to act on the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act, and the Hearing Protection Act. Trump then had a chance to stand up for the Second Amendment, but he pussed out and said “take the guns first, worry about Due Process afterwards.” Fuck him and everyone who supports that bullshit. Cheerleading for these guys without demanding accountability from them guarantees that nothing is going to change for the better.

        I’ll be there to vote Republican this midterm election. But unless they start taking this issue seriously, this will be the last time. I’m not going to be used every two years so they can get the votes and puss out.

        My thoughts to your reply are detailed below:
        “Yep. Unless the donald appoints flaming libs as justices, which he has not, then we are getting conservative justices at all levels.”

        First, we need to keep the Senate to get those District Judges/ Circuit Judges, and Supreme Court Associate Judges appointed. That is a prerequisite that is not guaranteed. Even if they do keep the Senate, they must have impeccable Second Amendment credentials. Plenty of Republican judges around the country have repeatedly shoved their gavel up our collective asses (Maryland, New York, Illinois).

        “Remember, it doesn’t matter what the donald thinks about guns. He’s a businessman who rubs elbows with other business men.”

        Yes, if fucking matters what “The Donald” thinks about guns. He is the chief executive of the United States. His office has the power to set the national agenda. If he doesn’t care about guns, that’s one more strike against us and you can be damned well sure that these important gun rights bills will be low-priority and ignored altogether.

        “What he and they want above all else is federal justices that will be business friendly.”

        Fuck big business. They contributed to this mess. You ain’t from New York City. I am. They’ll sell our rights down the river for a buck. Look at Bloomberg.

        “November is going to break a lot of libs hearts. And wait til you see the melt down when the donald gets his second term. It will be epic.”

        If we get fucked on the Second Amendment, His Meathead “The Donald” will not have a second term. Mark my words.

  13. avatar Gun Free School Zones are a crime against humanity says:

    Heller established that the individual has the right to own firearms, not the militia. More justices are being appointed by the donald. As soon as the midterms paint a clear picture of the losses socialism is going to suffer the donald will have more gop in DC.

    When the donald gets his second term he will have replaced 2-4 scotus justices. We will have constitutional carry at that point.

    1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

      ” We will have constitutional carry at that point.”

      And hopefully a lot more.

      We’re gonna need to get semi-auto firearms with detachable magazines declared expressly constitutional…

    2. avatar Dave says:

      “When the donald gets his second term he will have replaced 2-4 scotus justices. We will have constitutional carry at that point.”

      Are you referring to Donald “Take the guns first” Trump? The same huckster who stuck it to us after promising to expand Second Amendment protections at every campaign whistle stop, got elected, and did jack all to protect us?

      Or maybe you’re referring to the Republican Congress which, having three major pro-Second Amendment Bills (Concealed Carry Reciprocity, Second Amendment Guarantee Act, and Hearing Protection Act), failed to take any action on any bills only to dangle the gun rights avenue in front of us like a treat just out of reach of a Chihuahua with one kidney.

      Or maybe you’re referring to the countless Republican appointee Circuit Judges who adamantly refused to enforce the Second Amendment and Heller.

      Expanded gun rights in “The Donald’s” (non-existent at this point) second term. Ha. Don’t hold your breath. This issue needs a leader, and President Donald J. Meathead isn’t that leader.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “Expanded gun rights in “The Donald’s” (non-existent at this point) second term. Ha. Don’t hold your breath.”

        And – “Trump will never get the nomination!”

        And – “Trump will never be President. Take that to the bank. I guarantee it” – Nancy ‘Stretched-Face’ Pelosi :

        1. avatar Gun Free School Zones are a crime against humanity says:

          Yep. Unless the donald appoints flaming libs as justices, which he has not, then we are getting conservative justices at all levels.

          Remember, it doesn’t matter what the donald thinks about guns. He’s a businessman who rubs elbows with other business men. What he and they want above all else is federal justices that will be business friendly. And those conservative justices will, at least some of them, be pro 2a.

          November is going to break a lot of libs hearts. And wait til you see the melt down when the donald gets his second term. It will be epic.

      2. avatar CC says:

        Or maybe you’re referring to the Republican Congress which, having three major pro-Second Amendment Bills (Concealed Carry Reciprocity, Second Amendment Guarantee Act, and Hearing Protection Act), failed to take any action on any bills…

        Every single one of those lacked sufficient Senate support. There were hearings, committee votes and a complete certainty of not enough voted in the Senate. You are incorrect in every detail.

        Are you referring to Donald “Take the guns first” Trump? The same huckster who stuck it to us after promising to expand Second Amendment protections at every campaign whistle stop, got elected, and did jack all to protect us?

        You simply have not been paying attention to the many federal court nominations by President Trump — which are all that matter. Not to mention that in the field of alternatives, with any chance of winning Trump has been the best on this issue of any president and any candidate.

        The only “hucksters” are those who say otherwise

  14. avatar John McNair says:

    According to Madison’s own writings the whole purpose of the second Amendment was to defend the state against a standing army, not for self protection. The Heller decision made it easier for the government to decide that assualt rifles are not for self protection. The Heller decision was not the godsend everyone was touting but was the ground work the government needed to begin eliminating firearms based on type.

  15. avatar KTR says:

    There are four people that I wish could be on the Supreme Court right now.

    Unfortunately, two have passed away. Justice Antonin Scalia, Judge Robert Bork.

    The other two would be Judge Andrew Napolitano and ME.

    Four words, “shall not be infringed”.

  16. avatar Jesus Anaya Sr says:

    The non-appointed so called legal pundits should be mute. Let the supreme Court interpret the law being presented period. They should not be allowed to make or expand the existing law being presented.

  17. avatar Bob says:

    There is no reason that a lawfully abiding person should not be allowed to carry a firearm anywhere in the United States as they see fit to protect themselves from dangers, in public areas, if you want your private home to be gun free, so be it, but any place that is public or has public transactions should be constitutionally open for carry.
    One cannot rely on others for protection, this is our biggest downfall as a society and why so many cry out for help and cannot find any, its not everyone else s job to take care of you.

    As MarkPa said, the biggest reason for national reciprocity would be the fact that when you travel you have no idea what you will get into, you basically hope and pray for the best.
    I need my carry weapon LESS at home than I do in an area where I do not know anyone and cannot trust anyone.

    1. “Killing with kindness”! “Good Samaritan Law”: A “LAW” that exempts from legal liability a person who attempts to give reasonable aid to another person who is injured, ill, or otherwise imperiled. We generally laud “Good Samaritans,” people who stop to aid someone in distress. But should you find yourself in such a situation while walking down a street in Any Town USA, you, too might hesitate: Example, Michigan State Law protects medical personnel, “block parent volunteers,” and members of the National Ski Patrol from potential lawsuits related to any “emergency care” they render—but not to anyone else. There are exceptions, however, if you’re specifically giving CPR or using an emergency defibrillator. Got all that? So what is a “Good Person” to do when HE/SHE comes upon, say, the scene of an auto accident where a victim must be moved to avoid further injury and/or death? There are two answers:
      ONE: Step in and hope you don’t cause further injury—but risk getting sued if you do or the victim dies despite your efforts.
      TWO: “Google” the laws of wherever you are and consider the possible Legal Ramifications of helping…

      1. avatar Bob says:

        Funny you should bring that up.

        I have been in court more than once floating on the borderline “good Samaritan coverage”
        20+ years EMS, been blamed for everything from stealing drugs to causing increased injury to causing death.

        While you do have to fight for it, at least part of the law is there, just takes a good lawyer to back the interpretation. My suggestion to answer your questions is to know a good lawyer before you ever have to perform a good deed… just in case.

        1. It happen to me too! But for I was lucky, in that fact that the ALL the Company Cars are “Tricked Out” like Pinball Machine with Sight and Sound Recorders. I found out later that the reason for Tricking Out the Company Cars were for that very reason. Too protect the Driver from False Allegations by others and to make a Recording of Any and Every Encounter made. I suspect that Liability Insurance for the Company was a “Bitch” before the drastic measures were made…

  18. The Supreme Court does not “make: laws (that’s the job of the Senate, and House), but they are sometimes called upon to “interpret” laws according to current legal and political thought. (Pay attention to that word “Political”, because the Supremes walk a narrow tightrope.)

    If a specific “crime” is brought to their attention, they may offer an opinion; they would prefer not to impose a ‘ruling”, because their opinion may not be in accordance with current law … which they may or may not consider to have been perfectly framed.

    If you get the drift from the preceding two paragraphs, any expectation that the Supreme Court will over-ride local, state or even national laws is doomed … unless they are forced by circumstances to do so.

    I think they’ve done a good job of allowing the citizens to pressure the legislatures to make laws which are more cognizant of constitutional rights. Sometimes I grit my teeth and wish they would stop in to harness laws which are clearly unconstitutional … but that’s not their job.

    Until there is an issue which might be considered an infringement on the Constitution, and they are called upon through “Due Process” to consider the issue; their role is limited.
    And that’s the way it should be.

    Citizens vote for Representatives, who make the law. But we don’t vote for The Supremes, and that also is the way it should be. Judges don’t enforce the law (police do that); they merely interpret the law in terms of historical precedent.

    Those of you who thing that the Supreme Court should intercede in law-enforcement procedures must look to other venues. You need to talk to the law-makers .. your elected representatives. They alone write the rules we live by.

    You probably can’t talk to the Executive Branch … the law enforcers (President, on down the the cop-on-the-block) because they live by the rules … and expect you to. (If you don’t like the rules, write to your congressman!)

    The single friend you might have in court (so to speak) is the Judge. And he/she is NOT going to rule against established law … but might include some caustic comments in your sentencing, and those comments may be useful in the defense of the next person who does the same stupid thing you did and were convicted for.

    Cheer up!
    It might just happen that you will be wrongly convicted for violation a wrongful law .. but your case might be discussed in law schools for decades!

    While you’re still in jail, of course. It’s often better to know and abide by the law than to disobey it.

    Just saying.

  19. avatar Fran Taylor says:

    In the picture, the girl has her finger on the trigger and the hammer is cocked.
    I don’t want to be ant place near that girl.

    1. avatar GunGal says:

      Yip, trigger cocked, figure on trigger.
      Don’t fear, she’s a model doing a gun purse photo shoot, just doing what what the photographer is telling her to do.
      Seriously doubt it’s even loaded.
      Used to model, you do what you are told!
      Wait until photographer says, “got it” leave all the props and leave. Wait for your check!

  20. avatar Alan says:

    Perhaps I’m wrong, but it seems to me that the lawyers, court judges and such have an unusually good deal, not available to the citizenry.They can have their cake, while having eaten it, it seems. While Heller and a follow on Chicago ruling appeared to uphold constitutional rights concerning firearms, the weasel words appear to be endless and ever changing. Pardon me for the use of a somewhat crude expression but I do wonder as to whether or not the courts will ever manage to either Shit or Get Off The Pot.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Lawyers = Judges

      Judges = Lawyers

      What can possibly go wrong?

  21. avatar Frank Liso says:

    This is a nice little 2nd Amendment love letter for those of you that live in states where a CCW holder is not the Anti Christ. But, here in New Jersey, you’re up shit creek without a paddle. It does not matter if you have a CCW from a state with reciprocity or not. You possess a gun without a New Jersey SHALL ISSUE (NEVER) issue is more like it. And you are going to jail. GOD FORBID you have hollow points in the chamber. you’ll get a couple years for each hollow point. New Jersey sucks for gun owners and it’s getting worse each month. Our New democrat governor MURPHY and his GunGrabbing buddies can’t wait to make more gun laws it doesn’t matter if they are sensible or not.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email