Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Heller and McDonald, self-defense only?

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by balaperdida, Jun 4, 2014.

  1. balaperdida

    balaperdida eastern idaho Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    295
    Been studying Heller and McDonald the last few days.

    It appears that the SCOTUS has ruled that the individual right expressed in the 2nd Amendment applies only to firearms used for self-defense. No rights for target practice, hunting, or other activities. Comments?

    Suggest you read the decisions, without relying on NRA spin, before commenting.

    Heller: 07-290.pdf
    McDonald: 08-1521.pdf
    Thanks
     
  2. 1337BaldEagle

    1337BaldEagle Earth Active Member

    Messages:
    385
    Likes Received:
    225
    Throw all of this in with the Miller ruling where only weapons that have a "military purpose" are inclusive with the 2A and you can really get confused. Yet in Heller, she actually implies that when crafting the 2A it was a consideration of people crafting it. "The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued theancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even moreimportant for self-defense and hunting." Just one example.


    Eagle
     
  3. GunnyG

    GunnyG The Highlands Active Member

    Messages:
    259
    Likes Received:
    183

    Any other lawful use that we have for firearms is an ancillary benefit of the natural right of self preservation, and there are statutes which utilize that ability, to ensure that we can also train to, and respond to, various threats to our community.

    The second amendment is about the ability to prepare and train for 10 USC 311's obligation of reporting for militia duty, which (federally) starts at age 17 and ends at 45 (as currently is outlined in Title 10, and we all age out of it). as well as here in WA, where every citizen not a member of the national guard, may be called to militia duty by the Governor, regardless of male or female, so long as they are citizen or intend to be, 18 years old and above, they are obligated to performing militia duty,by state law: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=38.04.030 . The ability to prepare and train for that obligation to the state is found in Article 1 Section 24 of our state constitution.

    There won't be time to set up and run everyone through boot camps if Gov. Inslee needs to put our unorganized militia on the field. It would be to everyone's benefit if those called-up for militia duty could arrive already well-versed in the use and application of all available and militarily useful arms.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2014
  4. The Heretic

    The Heretic Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,036
    Likes Received:
    6,776
    I disagree that the Second Amendment is solely about militia infrastructure and logistics.

    Reading the text and the history (i.e., what the framers/founders said at the time), it is clear that the Second Amendment is about providing a balance of power against organized formal government.

    And it isn't just about firearms, it is about "arms" in general - i.e., artillery, grenades, rockets (all of which they had at that time) and any other "arms" that the government sees fit to use.

    The idea is that an armed populace is a deterrent to tyranny - simple as that. And the founders were all against tyranny.

    So no, it isn't about self-defense, duck hunting or sport - it is about any "arm" that could be used to give a person in power second thoughts about becoming a tyrant. Which is the major reason that those who believe government is *THE* answer to all of lifes problems want to see guns controlled and eventually eliminated from private (civilian) ownership.

    10255014_568281076620428_5614272535675639572_n.jpg
     
    1337BaldEagle likes this.
  5. 1337BaldEagle

    1337BaldEagle Earth Active Member

    Messages:
    385
    Likes Received:
    225
    That is quite possibly the best quote I have ever heard.


    Eagle
     
  6. balaperdida

    balaperdida eastern idaho Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    295
    No attempt here to interpret the 2nd Amendment. SCOTUS can handle that.

    OOPS! My bad. Put the opinion as to what is acceptable at the State (or local?) level in the wrong place.

    In Heller, the SCOTUS affirms that the right underlying the 2nd Amendment is the right to self defense.

    In Heller, Alito, writing for the SCOTUS, renders the opinion that State statutes that impose infringements such as prohibiting concealed carry, or requiring a license to possess a handgun in one's home are acceptable.

    Here is what is written in the syllabus for McDonald, which extended explicitly the 2nd Amendment to the States:

    "JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and III–B, concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self defense."

    The McDonald decision did not disavow the permissible infringements allowed in Heller.

    So, returning to my original question, what do you all believe the SCOTUS decided?

    Thanks again.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2014