Important gun rights case ignored by SC

[RespectTradition]

I know that most Democrats only care about like 5 amendments, the rest they seem to hate. (not that the Reps are much better) But the current SC has seemed to be interested in more, until now. Why can people not read the plain text of the 2nd amendment and understand it? Why will the courts, our last line of defense against an overreaching government, not stand up for us?

Supreme Court refuses potentially landmark gun-control case - CSMonitor.com

excerpts:

The US Supreme Court on Monday turned down the appeal of a Maryland man who said the state’s restrictive gun-permit law violated his constitutional right to carry a firearm in public for self defense.
...
“This case presents perhaps the most critical issue of all: are the words ‘bear arms’ devoid of meaning, thereby limiting the Second Amendment to the right to ‘keep arms’ within the four walls of one’s dwelling?” the Williams brief asked.
...
Williams said the state’s scheme is too restrictive. “The Maryland court holds that there is no Second Amendment right to ‘bear arms’ (that is, to wear or carry arms for purposes of confrontation or self defense). Any state-granted, discretionary privilege to carry a handgun in Maryland is restricted to a tiny minority of favored individuals, and by law is not available to the ordinary citizens who make up ‘the people,’ “ wrote Williams lawyer Stephen Holbrook in the brief.
...
Williams countered that statistics show that the vast majority of those permits were issued to police officers, security guards and other favored occupations. In contrast, Williams’s lawyers said, only 1.7 percent of permits were issued for personal protection.

 

[VOLatile]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It is kind of ambiguous. Is a regular citizen part of a well regulated militia in a time of peace?

 

[RespectTradition]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It is kind of ambiguous. Is a regular citizen part of a well regulated militia in a time of peace?

It's not ambiguous at all. Especially if you go and read the debates surrounding it and see what the people who wrote it intended.

The first part is why they thought it was important to deprive the government of the ability to disarm us. The why does not determine the what.

Besides, who in their right mind would possibly think that this conversation happened:

B: Hey Tom, I think it might be a good idea if we give the army guns.

T: I think you are right. The army should have guns.

B: Do you think congress might come along and say the army can't have guns?

T: Well, Bill. They just might.

B: Then why don't we include an amendment saying that the army gets to have guns and congress can't take 'em away.

T: Yup, I think that's a good idea.

(remember, the militia made up the bulk of the army that had just fought for independence)

 

[hndog609]

Interesting considering the Heller and McDonald v Chicago decisions.

After looking over things a bit more it appears we are mostly looking at an issue of how incorporation of the 2nd (pursuant to the cases referenced above) relates to the states, particularly in a State's discretion in issuing carry permits. Maryland is one of a handful of "may issue" states. TN for instance is "shall issue", which means if you meet the criteria the permit is issued. For "may issue" a state/local entity can listen to your reasons for wanting a permit and refuse you because they don't like your shirt or you stole the sherriff's gf back in high school.

It'd be tough to argue that a state has no authority to limit who can carry (though some states actually don't require permits at all, interestingly referred to as "constitutional carry") but there may be a push to make "shall issue" a standard that doesn't overly infringe on the average law abiding citizen being "the people".

 

[Volst53]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It is kind of ambiguous. Is a regular citizen part of a well regulated militia in a time of peace?

The founding fathers thought so