Judge upholds CT gun laws

[GURPS]

What do you think was the intent of the Second Amendment when it was drafted and adopted by the Founding generation? That is to say, what do you think were their motivations in considering it and their goals in enacting it?

Ooo Oooo Me ... Me ....

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Well, I'd say it's not looking good. I'm anxious to see how the courts deal with the MD law.

Depends where you look.

There's concealed carry in IL now. The 9th struck down San Diego's concealed carry law, abnd most recently, Hawaii's. DE just ruled in favor of gun owners vs. land lords.

From the court standpoint, dissent among courts is a good thing. I do think the SCOTUS is looking for a good case to review.

Just a few to look out for:
NRA v. BATFE. This challenges the "21 and older to buy a handgun" rule.

Drake v. Jerejian. This challenges New Jersey's "justifiable need reason to get a concealed carry permit" law.

Cooke v. Hickenlooper. This challenges the magazine cpacity limitation law in CO.

Wilson v. Cook County. This challenges an IL ban on "assault weapons" and how vague their law is.

New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York. This challenges NYC's Title 38, which prohibits licensed handgun owners from taking guns almost anywhere outside of city limits

We can only hope the SCOTUS picks up at least one of these to rule on.

 

[GURPS]

WE can't. That should be left up to those in our judiciary who ARE the legal scholars.

that leaves out 99% of Congress - the people passing laws,
and 99% of the Judiciary ruling on laws ....

 

[This_person]

WE can't. That should be left up to those in our judiciary who ARE the legal scholars.

My whole point is you can't have it both ways. Most of the people on here would agree that there should be some regulation when it comes to firearms. The rest of it is up to what is reasonable. That is decided by the people, through the legislature, and finally by the courts.

WE have to. We are not ruled by 9 appointed supreme gods. Each branch is essentially equal, and all three are subordinate to the people. Congress can pass a law, signed by the president, upheld by the SCOTUS, and nullified by the people through civil disobedience and jury nullification. If we presume the elected and appointed officials are superior and have the final say, we become subjects instead of citizens.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

WE have to. We are not ruled by 9 appointed supreme gods. Each branch is essentially equal, and all three are subordinate to the people. Congress can pass a law, signed by the president, upheld by the SCOTUS, and nullified by the people through civil disobedience and jury nullification. If we presume the elected and appointed officials are superior and have the final say, we become subjects instead of citizens.

I agree that's how it's supposed to be, but I think we're far past that point. Most Americans are so self absorbed that they wouldn;t do any of that.

 

[This_person]

I agree that's how it's supposed to be, but I think we're far past that point. Most Americans are so self absorbed that they wouldn;t do any of that.

But now that Connecticut's resident class of politically employed cretins has awoken to the fact that, in their state, like everywhere else, people overwhelmingly disobey orders to register their weapons, they're acting like this is a shocking revelation. They're also promising to make those who tried to comply, but missed the deadline regret the effort (proving the point of the openly defiant). And the politicians' enablers in the press are screaming for the prosecution of "scores of thousands" of state residents who, quite predictably, flipped the bird at the government.

:shrug:

 

[GURPS]

But now that Connecticut's resident class of politically employed cretins has awoken to the fact that, in their state, like everywhere else, people overwhelmingly disobey orders to register their weapons, they're acting like this is a shocking revelation. They're also promising to make those who tried to comply, but missed the deadline regret the effort (proving the point of the openly defiant). And the politicians' enablers in the press are screaming for the prosecution of "scores of thousands" of state residents who, quite predictably, flipped the bird at the government.

60 - 80,000

 

[justiceforall]

Oh yes WE can!

I really am not trying to be insulting, because you've been honest and respectful; but… you’re indicative of the ‘low information’ voter. Sitting back and letting others make your decisions for you. I’m not a constitutional scholar by any stretch, but I am making a huge effort to understand our constitution and what our founders’ intent was when writing it. I consider it a duty as a citizen of this country to be most informed so I can make smarter decisions about who I vote for to avoid electing people – and ultimately those people putting judges in power – that aim to destroy our constitution. I don’t have all the best answers for these things, but I do encourage you to not be content with believing any of our people that SERVE US in our government are serving our best interest.

I'm not asserting there is some perfect application of any part of our constitution. There are going to be exceptions to things; and those exceptions are (and should be) in the extreme and dealt with individually and not a paintbrush on everyone. Because some may have their rights limited because of exceptional circumstances, this does not diminish the intent of our constitution to apply to all citizens. Although it may not apply to everyone, the intent is that it does; and the special circumstances should be dealt with on a very limited basis, not through broad application of law.

Because I don't agree with your assesment of the Intent of the founding fathers, and because there is too much diverse information out there doesn't mean I am not educated about who I am voting for. As a matter of fact, this is the perfect example of because I don't think anyone can definitively determine the intent of the founding fathers, nor could anyone know their thoughts on what they would do in today's society, we have a process. We vote for people who pass laws we think are constitutional and if someone else disagrees, the remedy is the courts. That's why it's such a great country.

 

[justiceforall]

WE have to. We are not ruled by 9 appointed supreme gods. Each branch is essentially equal, and all three are subordinate to the people. Congress can pass a law, signed by the president, upheld by the SCOTUS, and nullified by the people through civil disobedience and jury nullification. If we presume the elected and appointed officials are superior and have the final say, we become subjects instead of citizens.

And if we practice civil disobedience and jury nullification simply because we don't like the law, then we become anarchist. Although, I don't see people practicing jury nullification in any widespread fashion since people are getting convicted on gun law charges every day.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Because I don't agree with your assesment of the Intent of the founding fathers, and because there is too much diverse information out there doesn't mean I am not educated about who I am voting for. As a matter of fact, this is the perfect example of because I don't think anyone can definitively determine the intent of the founding fathers, nor could anyone know their thoughts on what they would do in today's society, we have a process. We vote for people who pass laws we think are constitutional and if someone else disagrees, the remedy is the courts. That's why it's such a great country.

Didn't Heller v. DC use the Federalist papers to determine the original intent of the founding fathers?

 

[justiceforall]

Didn't Heller v. DC use the Federalist papers to determine the original intent of the founding fathers?

I am assuming you know the answer. I don't.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I am assuming you know the answer. I don't.

I don't recall, but I thought the opinion mentioned something about the intent of the 2A.

*goestogoogle*

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause.
The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing
rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights
interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/court/sup/DC_v_Heller_07-290.pdf

The quote is the summary, but if you delve into the opinion, they breakdown the prefatory clause and its operative clause of the 2A.

Another great quote from Heller v. DC opinion:

The Second Amendment
would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of
the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be
infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may
cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the
operative clause

 

[justiceforall]

I don't recall, but I thought the opinion mentioned something about the intent of the 2A.

*goestogoogle*


http://www.constitution.org/2ll/court/sup/DC_v_Heller_07-290.pdf

The quote is the summary, but if you delve into the opinion, they breakdown the prefatory clause and its operative clause of the 2A.

Another great quote from Heller v. DC opinion:

It very well may have. I don't recall in either McDonald or Heller where the court told the state they could not pass regulations concerning firearms. I think the court has spoken on this issue and said the state can pass regulations on firearms. Do you not agree with this? So if we are going to agree that the court made a good decision on a constitutional issue in McDonald and Heller, which I do, then should we not agree that the court has in effect allowed current regulations be lawful also based on the second amendment?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

It very well may have. I don't recall in either McDonald or Heller where the court told the state they could not pass regulations concerning firearms. I think the court has spoken on this issue and said the state can pass regulations on firearms. Do you not agree with this? So if we are going to agree that the court made a good decision on a constitutional issue in McDonald and Heller, which I do, then should we not agree that the court has in effect allowed current regulations be lawful also based on the second amendment?

I'm not arguing the limitations aspect. It's right there in the opinion.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

If anything, one can argue that AR-15s aren;t exactly "unusual weapons", and they are quite certainly "in common use" at this time. But I digress.

I posted this because you said:

Because I don't agree with your assesment of the Intent of the founding fathers, and because there is too much diverse information out there doesn't mean I am not educated about who I am voting for. As a matter of fact, this is the perfect example of because I don't think anyone can definitively determine the intent of the founding fathers, nor could anyone know their thoughts on what they would do in today's society, we have a process. We vote for people who pass laws we think are constitutional and if someone else disagrees, the remedy is the courts. That's why it's such a great country.

 

[Inkd]

Not that I would remotely argue for such a thing, but it would prevent drunk drivers from getting on the road. Of course people will find ways to disable it. So nothing is full-proof. But all the gun control laws out there, none have prevented gun crimes. None have even reduced gun crimes. It’s been used often enough… Chicago has extremely strict gun laws. They have a huge problem with gun crimes. Why is that? Because the people that would actually obey the law are left unarmed to defend themselves and criminals know this. It’s like shooting fish in a bucket. I also like to use the analogy… If a criminal had to choose between two houses to rob – one had a sign that read “This house is armed” and the other read “we do not believe in guns”; which house do you think the robber will rob? Do I need an AR with a 30 round clip to defend my home? If the robber has an AR with a 30 round clip I’d say yes. Do I need a 9mm with a 15 round clip? If the robber has a semi-auto pistol with a 15 round clip, most definitely. I not only want to be equally armed to those that want to harm me, I want to be superiorly armed. And the same is true to the true intent of the 2nd. I don’t only want to be armed in order to take back our country from tyranny, I want to be superiorly armed to any military/police force that government could use against me. THAT is the intent of the 2nd. Not that times have changed. Not that the 2nd was written 230 years ago and isn’t relevant today; but that THE PEOPLE have the power and ability to defend their the liberties that inherently belong to them. In the name of feel-good safety that can never be achieved this concept is lost; that is, until these anti-gun people are faced with the prospect of having to defend themselves.

I understand and agree with you on your point. I was trying to point out that, in my opinion, it seems as though everyone who is supportive of these laws seem to think the very act of us owning a particular type of weapon means that we are potential mass murderers.

My thought is that everyone who has a drivers license and enjoys an adult beverage has the potential to be a drunk driver and killer.

Why should I not be able to own something because of the actions of others? Why should you have to blow in a tube to start your car because of the actions of others?

That's the point I'm trying to make. If a drunk driver kills someone I love with a Mustang, I'm not going to go after Ford and Jack Daniels.

 

[Inkd]

Because the people in the states where those laws are being passed want those laws. So you too, aren't worried about gun control, just the gun control which effects you.

I think there are a couple few thousand people in Connecticut who would argue that statement.

Doesn't matter, I'm done with you. You said it all when you said you could carry anywhere in the U.S. thanks to President Bush. You are one of those "I've got mine, screw the peons" type of person.

I've got no use for you.

 

[Hijinx]

I think there are a couple few thousand people in Connecticut who would argue that statement.

Doesn't matter, I'm done with you. You said it all when you said you could carry anywhere in the U.S. thanks to President Bush. You are one of those "I've got mine, screw the peons" type of person.

I've got no use for you.

My thoughts exactly. By the way were the Patriots who freed us from the British Anarchists.?

 

[Gilligan]

Meanwhile..in rational 2A-supporting states like Georgia:

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/3/georgia-historic-victory-for-the-second-amendment.aspx

 

[GURPS]

Meanwhile..in rational 2A-supporting states like Georgia:

Allows for the use of firearm sound suppressors while hunting.

did you know if Europe Supressors are very common :shrug:

 

[BigBlue]

did you know if Europe Supressors are very common :shrug:

But not in Conn where this law will now stand !