Jump to content
reloaderguy

Supreme Court, The 2nd Amendment And The NRA

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

  

Ok,....  I can anticipate someone here asking the question, "what if you are sleeping in the nude when the break-in occurs....then what?"

My response is that of course I would be limited to the 10 rounds in my handgun.  But, I would have the added advantage of the element of surprise of being able to "shock and frighten" the intruders by flashing my nude body at them.  Once done, that would be enough to startle, unnerve, and discourage them of further attempts at violent aggression and motivate them to flee our house as quickly as possible, screaming down the street.  You see, I have really thought this through....:rolleyes:

AVB-AMG

 

 

 

Credit where credit is due....that made me chuckle. 

 As one who sleeps in the nude I've pondered this exact scenario....that is why I now have two pistols on the nightstand and several others concealed in strategic areas around the house.  Combine that with my frightening nakedness, alarm system and large Rottweilers, I too feel fairly secure.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, AVB... the naked body defense, huh? I'm... speechless, LOL. I'm not quite sure you've thought this through enough. ;)

In all seriousness, I do think you're greatly underestimating the very real physical symptoms caused by a rush of adrenaline. For instance, what if your hands are shaking badly? I think you're looking at this in a cool, analytical almost bookish way... I appreciate the rational thought, except... that's NOT what those situations actually look/feel like!

I'm guessing you may never have experienced a frightening, violent situation before? Because you're completely discounting not just the physical, but all of the psychological burdens that can kick into place - fear, protectiveness, panic, shock, aggression, confusion. Even the best trained people on here, who deal with tactical situations in their jobs... probably benefit from some level of detachment when doing their job in a stranger's house with a stranger's family. I think it would be vastly different when it's YOUR house, YOUR wife, YOUR kids. I will say this: I pray you are never in that situation, but I'll bet if you are, you'll be wishing your magazine had 500 bullets!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mrs. Peel:

You may be right...or not...  I also hope that I, nor any of us, ever has to actually find out.
In addition to the naked body defensive strategy, my wife has a stack of unread magazines next to her side of the bed.  One idea is that after exhausting the 10 rounds from my handgun, I could throw those magazines at any remaining living and determined buggerlers as they attempt to climb up the staircase to the second floor, while screaming like a wild banchy.  I would fully expect that they would slip on those glossy magazines and fall back down the stairs, breaking their necks in the process, thus neutralizing the threat.  Mission accomplished!

We all do what we feel we need to do for self and home protection.

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Avb I will tell you the reality part of your scenario as it happened to me. You will only grab your closest firearm. You will not gain coherence for at least 30 seconds post slumber. And hopefully you keep your bed gun chamberd. 

So in your case, you will have penalized your use of force abilities by 33% 

And who knows the threat level your faced with. Unless you’re like psychic or sumtin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bighungry618:

I appreciate your acknowledging my lighthearted perspective on this thorny issue.
Your approach probably makes more sense from a home defense strategy in an attire-optional sleeping scenario.  At least you can have one handgun in each hand vs. me with my one handgun in one hand and you-know-what in my other hand....(heh, heh).

I may be advocating a contrarian political opinion and point of view on this forum, but I try to always maintain a sense of humor, realizing that we all are American citizens just doing the best we can and trying to get along with each other....

AVB-AMG

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, AVB, that's an interesting defense plan!  You are making me laugh. I have some mental images now that are... shall we say?... disturbing! :facepalm:

I'm curious... how have you trained? Have you ever done any kind of training that induces even a low level of stress? Like  activities with a timer and moving targets, etc.? Might not be a bad idea if you haven't. Since you're an avid reader, you might also want to do some research into the effects of stress on the body and mind... first-person reports from crime victims, etc. I respect that you have a self- and family-defense plan, but I still feel convinced - based on your cool, analytical tone - that you're completely underestimating the impact of adrenaline and the very unpredictable nature of your reactions to that adrenaline.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Again, AVB, that's an interesting defense plan!  You are making me laugh. I have some mental images now that are... shall we say?... disturbing! :facepalm:

I'm curious... how have you trained? Have you ever done any kind of training that induces even a low level of stress? Like  activities with a timer and moving targets, etc.? Might not be a bad idea if you haven't. Since you're an avid reader, you might also want to do some research into the effects of stress on the body and mind... first-person reports from crime victims, etc. I respect that you have a self- and family-defense plan, but I still feel convinced - based on your cool, analytical tone - that you're completely underestimating the impact of adrenaline and the very unpredictable nature of your reactions to that adrenaline.  

@Mrs. Peel:

Yes I have trained with a firearm used against moving target, in addition to using a shotgun for sporting clays.  I have a very large stuffed animal prize to show for it, that I gave to my wife.....
BTW, I forgot to say that is why I have the bottle of bourbon on the bedside nightstand, as the immediate way to calm my nerves and address the adrenaline surge in the case of a break-in.

In all seriousness, I have trained shooting moving targets with a handgun and agree that is a real challenge to hit them with a high percentage of accuracy.  Natural adrenaline surging during a surprise intruder situation is a very real concern and I do expect that to reduce my effectiveness in my defensive response.
But then, just like Donald Trump said that he would have run unarmed into that FL high school to confront the shooter, maybe in the heat-of-the-moment, I would run down stairs, butt-naked, to confront the buggerlers and chase them out the door....:p  Who really knows how we will react...?

AVB-AMG

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To further this sidebar home defense discussion, that is off track of the tread's topic, let me share a story.

As part of my training I took a home defense with a handgun course, In that course, I was taught to ideally have a small, bright LED flashlight in addition to a firearm.  That way I could hold the flashlight in one hand and my handgun in the other.  In that configuration, we were taught to cross the hand that is holding the flashlight across the wrist of the other hand that is holding the handgun, to better focus both on one point/target.  The course instructor said that if so employed, an armed intruder may be temporarily blinded by the bright light from the flashlight, which would allow us to fire the first 1-2 defensive rounds from our handgun to hopefully neutralize the threat.  But he also said that it is also possible that the armed intruder could instinctively fire his gun first, aiming his fire towards the light source.  

After some contemplative thought, I told our instructor and our class that if I was in that situation, I would tell my wife who presumably would be standing behind or next to me, something like: "here honey, hold this flashlight...".  Needless to say, the women in that class were not amused by this, while all the guys were trying to suppress their laughter.

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

@Mrs. Peel:

Yes I have trained with a firearm used against moving target, in addition to using a shotgun for sporting clays.  I have a very large stuffed animal prize to show for it, that I gave to my wife.....
BTW, I forgot to say that is why I have the bottle of bourbon on the bedside nightstand, as the immediate way to calm my nerves and address the adrenaline surge in the case of a break-in.

In all seriousness, I have trained shooting moving targets with a handgun and agree that is a real challenge to hit them with a high percentage of accuracy.  Natural adrenaline surging during a surprise intruder situation is a very real concern and I do expect that to reduce my effectiveness in my defensive response.
But then, just like Donald Trump said that he would have run unarmed into that FL high school to confront the shooter, maybe in the heat-of-the-moment, I would run down stairs, butt-naked, to confront the buggerlers and chase them out the door....:p  Who really knows how we will react...?

AVB-AMG

 

You know, I'm not the #1 Trump Fan Girl by a long shot - I had major reservations about him from the get-go and continue to have some. However, I do feel compelled to defend him in this one instance, because that statement was really mangled beyond belief by the Trump-hating press.

1) MOST OF US adults like to believe that we would stop to help children at risk... it was a perfectly natural sentiment spoken by an adult horrified (as most of us were) that a sworn police officer seemingly allowed a slaughter of innocents to continue...

2) He immediately added something like "as I'm sure most of you would too, because I know you..." (I don't call the exact words), but it clearly gave "credit" to others in the room, acknowledging that's what any decent adult would do.. implying that it's instinctive for adults to protect kids...

3) Oddly enough, there was apparently a newspaper report from some years back - NY Post, I believe - where Trump was going by in his limo and saw a man getting beat up. He told his limo driver to stop and he jumped out and verbally confronted the attacker, which stopped the attack. He's a physically large man, so I could imagine WHY he would do that (unlike me, for example, who would be afraid of getting hurt - I might dial 911 and shout out the window, but NO WAY would I exit the car). So, for goodness sakes, I'm not going to not presume some awful level of cowardice in the man simply because he didn't serve in the armed forces or because the press hates him. 

Again, I'm not an apologist for the man... he says/does a lot that ticks me off. But I think that statement he made really got intentionally mangled...and I call: UNFAIR!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

To further this sidebar home defense discussion, that is off track of the tread's topic, let me share a story.

As part of my training I took a home defense with a handgun course, In that course, I was taught to ideally have a small, bright LED flashlight in addition to a firearm.  That way I could hold the flashlight in one hand and my handgun in the other.  In that configuration, we were taught to cross the hand that is holding the flashlight across the wrist of the other hand that is holding the handgun, to better focus both on one point/target.  The course instructor said that if so employed, an armed intruder may be temporarily blinded by the bright light from the flashlight, which would allow us to fire the first 1-2 defensive rounds from our handgun to hopefully neutralize the threat.  But he also said that it is also possible that the armed intruder could instinctively fire his gun first, aiming his fire towards the light source.  

After some contemplative thought, I told our instructor and our class that if I was in that situation, I would tell my wife who presumably would be standing behind or next to me, something like: "here honey, hold this flashlight...".  Needless to say, the women in that class were not amused by this, while all the guys were trying to suppress their laughter.

AVB-AMG

I presume your wife was not in the class? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AVB-AMG said:

@JimB1:

I am all for the Justices of the SCOTUS to take into account the historical context of the period and circumstances when the Constitution was originally written by our founding fathers.  IMHO, they should also take into account the current circumstances of our country, as well as all of the progress made over the past 220+ years, understanding how our society has evolved, in the process of forming their opinions in decided their cases.  

While I believe that our founding fathers and authors of the Bill of Rights and our Constitution were very insightful and forward thinking for their time, there is no way they could have imagined the world that we live in today.  Therefore, I think it is understandable that US Supreme Court Justices over the past 230+ years, as well as in the future, will interpret the U.S. Constitution based on current society and cultural sentiment and circumstances and yes, politics.  Whether we think their deicisions and interpretations are the "correct" ones or not, will be besides the point, since we will have to live with them.

I am not surprised that most folks here on NJGF take the “Originalist” view on how the SCOTUS should interpret the U.S. Constitution, especially on the 2nd Amendment issue.  But I thinnk you all should recognize and accept that many others outside of this gun forum prefer the “Modernist” interpretive approach.  

I think we all need to accept the many folks do have concerns or have some confusion due to the two statements or clauses of the 2nd Amendment.  Like many of you, I have had discussions with friends and family about guns and gun ownership in this country. Most of these discussions end up with everyone’s personal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, which are not always in agreement. Some people focus on the first part and emphasize that it really is intended solely to address the “well-regulated militia” clause and is fuzzy on personal gun ownership, while others focus on the second part about the “right of the people to keep and bear arms”, which they say is very clear. I have found it fascinating to learn that the majority of Americans accepted the first part interpretation up until 2008 when the SCOTUS decided in District of Columbia v. Heller case, in an opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, that embraced and championed the second part, individual rights view of the 2nd Amendment, which has been accepted ever since.

What this tells me is that it really will be dependent on the SCOTUS to continue to confirm this interpretation.  Or, in some future incarnation of the SCOTUS may possibly rule on a case that reverts back to the first part of the 2nd Amendment, diminishing the personal rights to own firearms or whatever future generations of weapons may become. We just do not know how it will play out over the next 20-30 years. While it is inconceivable to me that our Congress, for the foreseeable future, will repeal or greatly alter the 2nd Amendment, I think it remains a possibility down the road.

AVB-AMG

So what about the last 300 years was unforeseeable in your view? Leonardo Da Vinci foresaw flying vehicles, cars, robots, massive population explosion, medical advancements, war machines, tanks, and a myriad of other things centuries before the founders were around.

All of the founding fathers were well read and familiar with history, philosophy, warfare and technologic advancement principals. Many were renaissance men in their own right, inventors and scholars. They might be amazed at computers and information tech from now but I doubt they didn't think about multi-shot weapons. Many of them had pepper boxes and other multi-shot weapons at the time and in their lifetimes they saw massive military weapons innovation as well as the invention of the printing press and the beginnings of the industrial revolution in Europe, (though it did take 50 years more to get in full swing in the US) 

I always wonder when people say the founding fathers couldn't foresee the modern world. People hundreds of years before them saw a lot of what we have in the modern world, why act as if they were incapable of seeing where at least some advancements would come in. If anything, war and communications advancements were the most obvious areas to figure out. 

So maybe they couldn't foresee the rise of internet news outlets like CNN and MSNBC or something like a Facebook and Amazon but they understood the press and commerce very well and it's not a stretch to say the ideas they had way back then can be applied to new media and internet commerce without a whole lot of "interperetation" needed.

There might be some specific instances that the founders were unaware of as a potential issue or maybe just didn't bother to expand on, like same sex marriage but even that is not too tough to figure out from a constitutional standpoint. It's listed no where that the federal government has any authority over any marriage. Authority falls to the state unless the people of the state got it passed into law that the state has no authority over it or the state simply has no inclination to create law around it. If multiple states have conflicting laws, the Federal government and Judicial system have tools to deal with that, though to date no one seems inclined to really solve that particular issue but it's not because they don't have the tools or guidance to do so, it's politics stopping it.

So again, the SC must take the Constitution and apply it to modern situations but there's very little that requires "interpretation", just a determination of what parts apply to the case in front of them and exactly how. If no parts do then it's simply not a federal case unless it is a conflict between the states of something they don't have federal authority over or something regarding foreign entities. I remember reading something like half the SCs workload is working with the Native American tribes with issues in conflict with the US. 

Some more thoughts...

-Jim

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Constitution was meant to be viewed as anything but the original intent the founding fathers would have made that clear. They spent much time debating and writing it. This was done so it what was written would stand the test of time. They included an option to make changes through Amendments. So I think AVB and his buddies should petition their leaders to include Repeal The Second as part of their national party platform. Can use #Repeal2nd. Please do it.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if TheShootist is still around or if he "took his ball and went home". His, and those like him, make a flawed argument that some noticed.

In one post he asks, "Do you understand that a right cannot be regulated in any fashion?".  A few posts later he says, "Well when you tell people who believe that they support the 2nd amendment that it actually requires you to get out and train a few times a year, the dissent begins."

You can't in one breathe state that a right cannot be regulated in any fashion and in the next breathe demand that individuals belong to a militia and train.  It's one or the other.

And the SC has already ruled that at It's core the 2nd Amendment is about protection and that it is an individual right that does not require membership in any type of militia (state sponsored or not).

It seems that TheShootist had a lot of energy and time invested in one arguement and he didn't agree with the rulings that upheld the 2nd Amendment because it wasn't in agreement with the way he would like.

I'm not even bothering to read AVBs dissertation at this time.  Maybe later.

But the Bill Of Rights ARE individual rights that set restrictions on government powers.  I don't know how anyone (though many try) can argue otherwise.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good read on major 2nd Amendment cases.  At the end I think it describes why the SC didn't strike down the Maryland ban on "assualt weapons" and what the next question is that will more than likely (though in defiance of common sense) need to be decided by the SC.  AND that is what is an Assualt Rifle and what does in common use mean or what does "dangerous" and "unusual" mean.

Enjoy the read.  I think most will learn at least one or two new things.  I know I did!

https://ammo.com/articles/second-amendment-supreme-court-cases-guide

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, gleninjersey said:

Good read on major 2nd Amendment cases.  At the end I think it describes why the SC didn't strike down the Maryland ban on "assualt weapons" and what the next question is that will more than likely (though in defiance of common sense) need to be decided by the SC.  AND that is what is an Assualt Rifle and what does in common use mean or what does "dangerous" and "unusual" mean.

Enjoy the read.  I think most will learn at least one or two new things.  I know I did!

https://ammo.com/articles/second-amendment-supreme-court-cases-guide

 

Quote

California's Fourth District Court ruled in 2013 that AK- and AR-type semi-automatic rifles are at least as "dangerous" and "unusual" as short-barreled shotguns, which were prohibited by the Miller decision. So far, challenges to assault weapon bans have not made it out of lower-level state and federal courts, blocked by the Miller ruling that only weapons "in common use" are protected by the Second Amendment. In the absence of a definitive Supreme Court ruling, it's still up to the states to decide which types of weapons are "dangerous" or "unusual."

Except of course, that (thanks to Obama's BATF !), short-barrel not-a-shotguns are legal today in 2018! (Mossberg 590 Shockwave & Remington Tac14.)

See also Caetano v. Massachusetts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts

Quote

Opinion of the Court

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6] The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1] First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10] Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconsistent with Heller.[11] Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

Now substitute AR15/AK47 for "stun guns" in the first and second reasons in the opinion. (If reason #1 and reason #2 are true, then it follows Massachusetts #3 reason for banning actually supports private ownership of AR15/AK47s.)

My guess is that the SC has been reluctant to address each and every bad 2A lower court decision that comes its way after 28 years of post-Reagan judicial appointments, because they don't have the time, and also because Kennedy has become a squish.

Trump needs to appoint a couple more SC justices. And hopefully, three.

Then the SC will (hopefully) smack all of this nonsense down.

 

TAC-14-and-Mossberg-shockwave-on-concrete-.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be much simpler if there were a legal basis for “dangerous and unusual”.  The Antigun side still points to Heller and says that AWB’s are constitutional because AR15’s are dangerous.  Of course that ignores the “and”. Even if you’re a squish and think AR’s are dangerous they certainly aren’t unusual.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

This would be much simpler if there were a legal basis for “dangerous and unusual”.  The Antigun side still points to Heller and says that AWB’s are constitutional because AR15’s are dangerous.  Of course that ignores the “and”. Even if you’re a squish and think AR’s are dangerous they certainly aren’t unusual.  

I would argue that reason should stand in court. Unfortunately, it doesn't necesarily. 

But AR pattern guns are not unusual. Last year 4.2 million long guns were made. The industry estimates are that ~3 million of them were ar pattern rifles. They have been around for 50+ years and are pretty much the default rifle. 

As for dangerous, clearly handguns do't meet that threshold. They are demonstrably causing less hazard than handguns. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, revenger said:

story on NJ.co today about Murphy directing his people to dismiss the ANJPRC lawsuit.

 

sorry cant find link anymore,   NJ.com today

More specifically, Murphy’s people (AG) was asking the federal judge to dismiss the case. 

I don’t think you can appeal dismissals, can you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The State defendants moved to dismiss the ANJRPC suit on its face yesterday arguing it is foreclosed by the Third Circuit's decision in Drake.  This was expected as the District Court must follow Drake; the Third Circuit will affirm that decision and once again we will be waiting to see if SCOTUS will agree to hear a right to carry case.

Interestingly, the essential defense of "justifiable need" made by the State is that it has been around since 1924 and by that fact alone is a longstanding regulation exempt from reach of the Second Amendment.  Its response to Wrenn is that the District of Columbia's "justifiable need" scheme was only adopted in 2014 and is therefore not "longstanding."  That in my view is a very weak argument.  If the right to carry outside the home is a core Second Amendment right, as Wrenn held, then the fact that NJ has been violating the constitutional rights of law abiding gun owners who wish to carry for 94 years does not earn it a pass going forward.  No real attempt to reach the merits of the majority opinion in Wrenn.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

By that logic restrictions on the right of women and blacks to vote shouldn’t violate the constitution since they were in place before the Constitution was ratified to include them, or even existed in the first place. 

And that @Krdshrk is logic...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...