The first step being acomplished in the Heller victory what should the NEXT step be to push back the line? I believe CARRY is the best choice.
The next step should be going after juridictions that outlaw BOTH open AND concealed carry and/or only allow ‘bearing arms’ in a condition making them unusful in case of confrontation (locked in trunk, separate storage of gun and ammo, etc.) laws that do this directly infringe upon the now affirmed 2nd Amendment right. The quote from the Heller v. DC majority opinion below alone should be enough to challenge those laws. Remember, we don’t have to get laws passed, just laws struck down as the 2nd Amendment Codifies an EXISTING right, it is not right GRANTED by the constitution. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed.
The majority opinion is actually the Opinion of the Court and I believe in creates an air of being less then definitive by reffering to it as the Majority opinion by implying the dissenting opion has comperable weight.
(from p.19 of the Opinion of the Court)
Illinois and Wisconsin law(s) should be immediately challenged due to their ‘rights denied’ laws. No open, concealed, or permits to do either. Those laws are now directly unconstitutional prima fascia in light of the the Heller decision and the portion of the majority opinion quoted above.
Next should be California, New York, NY City, Massachusetts, New Jersy, et al named directly for their ‘may issue’ laws as they infringe on the right.
This approach needs immediate action while the iron is still hot.
This would be step two (the affirmations in Heller being step one) to establish the right to BEAR arms enforceable by Heller. After actually carrying a gun is deemed and accepted (like it or not) then WHAT can be carried and what can be KEPT have their foundations.
From p.58
The above clearly states that restricting the carry of the firearm OR regulation the WAY it is carried by requiring it “be rendered and kept inoperable at all times (requiring it be in a case, disassembled, stored separate then ammo,etc.) “This
makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core
lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”
As for ‘responsible gun laws’ or ‘reasonable restrictions’ being argued…….
(from p. 62&63)
This follows with the virtual instruction manual Scalia wrote for us in the Heller Opinion of the Court. Note the frequency Scalia makes analogies with the 1st Amendment. It is as if he is suggesting the same course of action be taken with the Second Amendment as was taken with the First regarding the SCOTUS. Let’s take his advice!
(continuation from above)
Let’s end the infringement on bearing (carrying) our handguns on or person and in our vehicles by striking down the laws that the Courts Opinion of DC v. Heller calls unconstitutional. Justice Scalia not only makes future challenges to laws that infringe upon the 2nd Amendment by THOUGROUGHLY defining to words and grammer on it so as to end the strained interpretations. He goes on the discredit points made in the Dissenting opinions with vigor. He then subtly instructs us on what future challenges would be successful be almost presenting the case for carry and carrying in an operable condition in the event of confrontation. Finally he suggests that the path the 1st Amendment took has parallels and enjoys like principles. He even seems to be inviting them with the "And 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." line.
I believe carry laws are the next logical, strongest, and most impactive challenges to take.
Remember, from here forward we aren’t protecting our right to keep and bear arms as that was an existing right before the Constitution was written, it’s infringement upon that right the 2A protects. INFRINGEMENT to KEEP and BEAR arms is AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL as infringement on free speech. After all SPEECH was once considered SO DANGEROUS that people were (and still are in places of the world) killed for their words.
The next step should be going after juridictions that outlaw BOTH open AND concealed carry and/or only allow ‘bearing arms’ in a condition making them unusful in case of confrontation (locked in trunk, separate storage of gun and ammo, etc.) laws that do this directly infringe upon the now affirmed 2nd Amendment right. The quote from the Heller v. DC majority opinion below alone should be enough to challenge those laws. Remember, we don’t have to get laws passed, just laws struck down as the 2nd Amendment Codifies an EXISTING right, it is not right GRANTED by the constitution. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed.
The majority opinion is actually the Opinion of the Court and I believe in creates an air of being less then definitive by reffering to it as the Majority opinion by implying the dissenting opion has comperable weight.
(from p.19 of the Opinion of the Court)
c. 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 Second Amendment.
We look to this because it has always been widely understood
that the Second Amendment, like the First and
Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The
very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes
the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it
“shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v.
Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 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
Illinois and Wisconsin law(s) should be immediately challenged due to their ‘rights denied’ laws. No open, concealed, or permits to do either. Those laws are now directly unconstitutional prima fascia in light of the the Heller decision and the portion of the majority opinion quoted above.
Next should be California, New York, NY City, Massachusetts, New Jersy, et al named directly for their ‘may issue’ laws as they infringe on the right.
This approach needs immediate action while the iron is still hot.
This would be step two (the affirmations in Heller being step one) to establish the right to BEAR arms enforceable by Heller. After actually carrying a gun is deemed and accepted (like it or not) then WHAT can be carried and what can be KEPT have their foundations.
From p.58
“Few laws in the history of our Nation have come close to
the severe restriction of the District’s handgun ban. And
some of those few have been struck down. In Nunn v.
State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition
on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a
prohibition on carrying concealed weapons). See 1 Ga., at
251. In Andrews v. State, the Tennessee Supreme Court
likewise held that a statute that forbade openly carrying a
pistol “publicly or privately, without regard to time or
place, or circumstances,” 50 Tenn., at 187, violated the
state constitutional provision (which the court equated
with the Second Amendment). That was so even though
the statute did not restrict the carrying of long guns. Ibid.
See also State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616–617 (1840) (“A
statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts
to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be
so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose
of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional”).
It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible
to ban the possession of handguns so long as the
possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It
is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American
people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential
self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a
citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier
to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency;
it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by
an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upperbody
strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed
at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the
police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popu-
lar weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the
home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.
We must also address the District’s requirement (as
applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the
home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This
makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core
lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”
The above clearly states that restricting the carry of the firearm OR regulation the WAY it is carried by requiring it “be rendered and kept inoperable at all times (requiring it be in a case, disassembled, stored separate then ammo,etc.) “This
makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core
lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”
As for ‘responsible gun laws’ or ‘reasonable restrictions’ being argued…….
(from p. 62&63)
We know of no other enumerated constitutional right
whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding
“interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of
the right takes out of the hands of government—even the
Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a
case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting
upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future
judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional
guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with
the scope they were understood to have when the people
adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes)
even future judges think that scope too broad. We would
not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition
of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See
National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43
(1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the
freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified,
which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure
of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely
unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second
Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very
product of an interest-balancing by the people—which
JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And
whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely
elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding,
responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and
home.
This follows with the virtual instruction manual Scalia wrote for us in the Heller Opinion of the Court. Note the frequency Scalia makes analogies with the 1st Amendment. It is as if he is suggesting the same course of action be taken with the Second Amendment as was taken with the First regarding the SCOTUS. Let’s take his advice!
(continuation from above)
JUSTICE BREYER chides us for leaving so many applications
of the right to keep and bear arms in doubt, and for
not providing extensive historical justification for those
regulations of the right that we describe as permissible.
See post, at 42–43. But since this case represents this
Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment,
one should not expect it to clarify the entire field,
any more than Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145
(1879), our first in-depth Free Exercise Clause case, left
that area in a state of utter certainty. And 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.
Let’s end the infringement on bearing (carrying) our handguns on or person and in our vehicles by striking down the laws that the Courts Opinion of DC v. Heller calls unconstitutional. Justice Scalia not only makes future challenges to laws that infringe upon the 2nd Amendment by THOUGROUGHLY defining to words and grammer on it so as to end the strained interpretations. He goes on the discredit points made in the Dissenting opinions with vigor. He then subtly instructs us on what future challenges would be successful be almost presenting the case for carry and carrying in an operable condition in the event of confrontation. Finally he suggests that the path the 1st Amendment took has parallels and enjoys like principles. He even seems to be inviting them with the "And 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." line.
I believe carry laws are the next logical, strongest, and most impactive challenges to take.
Remember, from here forward we aren’t protecting our right to keep and bear arms as that was an existing right before the Constitution was written, it’s infringement upon that right the 2A protects. INFRINGEMENT to KEEP and BEAR arms is AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL as infringement on free speech. After all SPEECH was once considered SO DANGEROUS that people were (and still are in places of the world) killed for their words.