Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
A ‘Well Regulated Militia’ the Basis of Private Gun Ownership
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 3078994" data-attributes="member: 13624"><p>This.</p><p></p><p>See also:</p><p></p><p>"Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii" target="_blank">Second Amendment</a>. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii" target="_blank">Second Amendment</a> , like the First and <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentiv" target="_blank">Fourth Amendment</a> s, codified a <em>pre-existing</em> right. The very text of the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii" target="_blank">Second Amendment</a> implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it 'shall not be infringed.' As we said in <em>United States</em> v. <em>Cruikshank</em>, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?92+542" target="_blank">92 U. S. 542</a>, 553 (1876) , '[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .'"</p><p></p><p><a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/opinion.html" target="_blank"><em>District of Columbia v. Heller</em>, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)</a> at 592 [<em>emphasis</em> in original].</p><p></p><p>Anybody who wants to argue that the Court's interpretation is wrong is free to do so; everybody is entitled to his own opinion. Everybody is <em>not</em>, however, entitled to his own <em>facts</em>, and the <em>fact</em> is that this is binding SCOTUS precedent--citing to a previous precedent stating the same--and will continue to be such until overruled by a future SCOTUS ruling; that much is not open for debate.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 3078994, member: 13624"] This. See also: "Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the [URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii']Second Amendment[/URL]. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the [URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii']Second Amendment[/URL] , like the First and [URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentiv']Fourth Amendment[/URL] s, codified a [I]pre-existing[/I] right. The very text of the [URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii']Second Amendment[/URL] implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it 'shall not be infringed.' As we said in [I]United States[/I] v. [I]Cruikshank[/I], [URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?92+542']92 U. S. 542[/URL], 553 (1876) , '[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .'" [URL='https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/opinion.html'][I]District of Columbia v. Heller[/I], 554 U.S. 570 (2008)[/URL] at 592 [[I]emphasis[/I] in original]. Anybody who wants to argue that the Court's interpretation is wrong is free to do so; everybody is entitled to his own opinion. Everybody is [I]not[/I], however, entitled to his own [I]facts[/I], and the [I]fact[/I] is that this is binding SCOTUS precedent--citing to a previous precedent stating the same--and will continue to be such until overruled by a future SCOTUS ruling; that much is not open for debate. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
A ‘Well Regulated Militia’ the Basis of Private Gun Ownership
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom