Supreme Court, The 2nd Amendment And The NRA

[CAL. .30 M1 2,101]

Enjoy....  pretty straightforward 

 

 

 

 

 

[1LtCAP 4,264]

any way to make that clickable so as to be enlarged?

 

[NJGF 375]

55 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

any way to make that clickable so as to be enlarged?

 

[xXxplosive 824]

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

So it turns out Justice Stevens doesn't believe in the Second Amendment, therefore he ruled against it.

Isn't it the job of SCOTUS justices to rule on what the Constitution actually says, not what they wish it said?

(Please take note, Justices Ginsberg, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer.)

[Ray Ray 3,566]

36 minutes ago, NJGF said:

I want this in a frame

[AVB-AMG 530]

On 3/28/2018 at 9:41 AM, Old Glock guy said:

Isn't it the job of SCOTUS justices to rule on what the Constitution actually says, not what they wish it said?

(Please take note, Justices Ginsberg, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer.)

@Old Glock guy

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest federal court of the United States. Established in 1789, pursuant to Article Three of the United States Constitution.  It has ultimate and essentially largely discretionary appellate jurisdiction over all federal courts and state court cases involving issues of federal law plus original jurisdiction over a small range of cases. In United States legal system the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law.  The Supreme Court is generally the final arbiter of the law and functions as the guardian and interpreter of federal law including the United States Constitution, but it may act only within the context of a case in which it has jurisdiction.

The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.

Unlike the black & white / absolutist opinions expressed by some here, I am not naïve and recognize and accept that each of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices will interpret the law and Constitution based on their education and work/life experiences and exposure to those who are not from the same class or “tribe”.  I also am fully aware that there is a major difference of opinion on how the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted by the Justices.  That division of opinion is based on multiple factors involving different demographic groups including taking into account one’s: political beliefs and ideology, level of formal education, race, age, gender and religious affiliation.

According to a 2014 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, they found that about half of the public (49%) say the decisions of the Supreme Court should be based on its understanding of what the Constitution “means in current times,” (modernist) while roughly as many (46%) say decisions should be based on what the Constitution “meant as it was originally written” (originalist).  Here is a synopsis of the findings of that Pew study and what each group was sympathetic to listed by percentages:

Group                                        Modernist          Originalist

Democrats                                 70%                     26%
Republicans                               29%                     69%
Post-Graduate Degree Education    62%                            
High School Only Graduates            46%               49%
Whites                                               44%
African Americans                             61%
Hispanics                                           61%
White Evangelical Protestants                                73%
White Mainline Protestants                                     44%
Catholics                                                                 42%
Black Protestants                                                    37%
Traditional Religiously Unaffiliated     63%              34%

These differing views of how the court should interpret the Constitution may account for some of the partisan differences in opinions of the court itself seen in over the past 20+ years.  So ultimately, the U.S. Constitution means what the Supreme Court Justices says it means based on each of their interpretation.

AVB-AMG

EDIT:  I apologize for the formatting of the chart which does not appear correctly when viewed on a smart phone or tablet.

[Zeke 5,504]

7 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

@Old Glock guy

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest federal court of the United States. Established in 1789, pursuant to Article Three of the United States Constitution.  It has ultimate and essentially largely discretionary appellate jurisdiction over all federal courts and state court cases involving issues of federal law plus original jurisdiction over a small range of cases. In United States legal system the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law.  The Supreme Court is generally the final arbiter of the law and functions as the guardian and interpreter of federal law including the United States Constitution, but it may act only within the context of a case in which it has jurisdiction.

The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.

Unlike the black & white / absolutist opinions expressed by some here, I am not naïve and recognize and accept that each of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices will interpret the law and Constitution based on their education and work/life experiences and exposure to those who are not from the same class or “tribe”.  I also am fully aware that there is a major difference of opinion on how the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted by the Justices.  That division of opinion is based on multiple factors involving different demographic groups including taking into account one’s: political beliefs and ideology, level of formal education, race, age, gender and religious affiliation.

According to a 2014 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, they found that about half of the public (49%) say the decisions of the Supreme Court should be based on its understanding of what the Constitution “means in current times,” (modernist) while roughly as many (46%) say decisions should be based on what the Constitution “meant as it was originally written” (originalist).  Here is a synopsis of the findings of that Pew study and what each group was sympathetic to listed by percentages:

Group                                                              Modernist                    Originalist

Democrats                                                       70%                             26%
Republicans                                                    29%                             69%
Post-Graduate Degree Education                   62%                            
High School Only Graduates                          46%                             49%
Whites                                                             44%
African Americans                                           61%
Hispanics                                                        61%
White Evangelical Protestants                                                            73%
White Mainline Protestants                                                                 44%
Catholics                                                                                             42%
Black Protestants                                                                                37%
Traditional Religiously Unaffiliated                  63%                             34%

These differing views of how the court should interpret the Constitution may account for some of the partisan differences in opinions of the court itself seen in over the past 20+ years.  So ultimately, the U.S. Constitution means what the Supreme Court Justices says it means based on each of their interpretation.

AVB-AMG

That’s called a banana republic... the constitution is the adult in the room.

jus sayen 

[voyager9 3,434]

Literacy test and voting is to _____ and the 2A

Pole tax and voting is to ____ and 2A

Voter ID laws is to _____

 

[Zeke 5,504]

6 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

Literacy test and voting is to _____ and the 2A

Pole tax and voting is to ____ and 2A

Voter ID laws is to _____

 

Light the match first

[xXxplosive 824]

https://www.facebook.com/UncleSamsChildren/videos/857826364413364/

The March...........

[1LtCAP 4,264]

UPHOLD. NOT INTERPRET.

 

[Paulie Buffo 17]

AVB-AMG : "I believe that firing 10 rounds or less should be sufficient to neutralize the threat of 1-2 intruders".

Most of us are not as an amazing shot as you in an emergency situation - especially under fire. 

Criminals breaking into a home or business will be prepared with massive capacity magazines or worse (full auto) for all you know.  If you are defending your wife and children do you really want a fair fight? I don't want a "fair" fight. I want an overwhelming force to stop them immediately. You are defending your loved ones - at least fight to posses the best defensive options you can.

BTW: it we did enact your proposed "rules", then how long before you want additional restrictions. What guarantee would be given that there will be no additional laws - you would never get one. I once believed in compromise but it seems the compromise in only one way.  Do you not hear what the anti-gunners are saying : "If they give an inch, we'll take a mile", "we will not compromise", "repeal the second amendment". 

Its sad but there is not way to deal with people won't even listen to what you have to say.

sorry I ranted so long. peace.

[matty 810]

6 hours ago, voyager9 said:

Literacy test and voting is to _____ and the 2A

Pole tax and voting is to ____ and 2A

Voter ID laws is to _____

 

Pole tax? Tax for persons of Polish extraction? A large penis tax? 

[matty 810]

7 hours ago, AVB-AMG said:

@Old Glock guy

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest federal court of the United States. Established in 1789, pursuant to Article Three of the United States Constitution.  It has ultimate and essentially largely discretionary appellate jurisdiction over all federal courts and state court cases involving issues of federal law plus original jurisdiction over a small range of cases. In United States legal system the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law.  The Supreme Court is generally the final arbiter of the law and functions as the guardian and interpreter of federal law including the United States Constitution, but it may act only within the context of a case in which it has jurisdiction.

The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.

Unlike the black & white / absolutist opinions expressed by some here, I am not naïve and recognize and accept that each of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices will interpret the law and Constitution based on their education and work/life experiences and exposure to those who are not from the same class or “tribe”.  I also am fully aware that there is a major difference of opinion on how the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted by the Justices.  That division of opinion is based on multiple factors involving different demographic groups including taking into account one’s: political beliefs and ideology, level of formal education, race, age, gender and religious affiliation.

According to a 2014 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, they found that about half of the public (49%) say the decisions of the Supreme Court should be based on its understanding of what the Constitution “means in current times,” (modernist) while roughly as many (46%) say decisions should be based on what the Constitution “meant as it was originally written” (originalist).  Here is a synopsis of the findings of that Pew study and what each group was sympathetic to listed by percentages:

Group                                        Modernist          Originalist

Democrats                                 70%                     26%
Republicans                               29%                     69%
Post-Graduate Degree Education    62%                            
High School Only Graduates            46%               49%
Whites                                               44%
African Americans                             61%
Hispanics                                           61%
White Evangelical Protestants                                73%
White Mainline Protestants                                     44%
Catholics                                                                 42%
Black Protestants                                                    37%
Traditional Religiously Unaffiliated     63%              34%

These differing views of how the court should interpret the Constitution may account for some of the partisan differences in opinions of the court itself seen in over the past 20+ years.  So ultimately, the U.S. Constitution means what the Supreme Court Justices says it means based on each of their interpretation.

AVB-AMG

More cut and paste propaganda, from whatever Shareblue/OFA/MDA talking points came out yesterday. Your fraud has long since been exposed.  Only a brainless college sophomore would agree with any of this drivel. 

[JohnnyB 4,326]

When the Supreme Court Justices rule based on what THEY THINK the Constitution SHOULD mean based on their feelings, we as a nation will soon cease to exist!

The job of the Supreme Court is actually quite simple! Interpret the words written therein the WAY THEY WERE WRITTEN by the very wise and foreseeing people who wrote them in the first place!

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

13 hours ago, Paulie Buffo said:

AVB-AMG : "I believe that firing 10 rounds or less should be sufficient to neutralize the threat of 1-2 intruders".

Most of us are not as an amazing shot as you in an emergency situation - especially under fire. 

Criminals breaking into a home or business will be prepared with massive capacity magazines or worse (full auto) for all you know.  If you are defending your wife and children do you really want a fair fight? I don't want a "fair" fight. I want an overwhelming force to stop them immediately. You are defending your loved ones - at least fight to posses the best defensive options you can. ...

First, I agree with everything Paulie B. just said. Second, that same line in AVB's message jumped right out at me, too, but for this slightly different reason: who's to say there's only 1-2 intruders? That's a rather big assumption, isn't it?

I'm sure that MOST of the time, 1-2 intruders is, in fact, the most common scenario. However, I think one of the scariest crime trends (bone-chilling, really) to get press coverage in recent years was what they have coined a "home invasion" - where MULTIPLE intruders, like 3 or more, storm into someone's home all at once as an overwhelming force. Can you even imagine the terror? So, now imagine you've got that same 10 rounds, you're firing under extreme duress as Paulie B. mentioned (sweating palms, tunnel vision, all the other physical stress effects that can kick in and severely degrade accuracy)... and, worse yet, you've also got several moving targets swarming around... possibly armed and shooting back. When you think about that scenario, well... 10 rounds doesn't sound quite so ample, does it?

 

[WP22 1,558]

1 hour ago, JohnnyB said:

When the Supreme Court Justices rule based on what THEY THINK the Constitution SHOULD mean based on their feelings, we as a nation will soon cease to exist!

The job of the Supreme Court is actually quite simple! Interpret the words written therein the WAY THEY WERE WRITTEN by the very wise and foreseeing people who wrote them in the first place!

I'll quote you to concur

 

I'll quote:

“Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . . The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.

---

“Our Constitution . . . intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent that they might check and balance one another, it has given—according to this opinion to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of others; and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. . . . The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

---

“You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so . . . and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”

---

 “One single object… [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation.”

And finally:

“…The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

 

The first 4 quotes are from somebody that's one could call a constitutional scholar -no I'm sorry to disappoint his many fans here, it was not Barrack Obama- it was by Thomas Jefferson and he augtta know the original intent and role for the judiciary since he wrote the darn thing.

The fact is that the supreme court appointed themselves-how convenient- the final arbitrators of all matters constitutional and have done so since the beginning. Now it seems to me that if that was the original intent for the supreme court, it would have beens so spelled out on the constitution.

But it wasn't, therefore that role was never intended to be theirs. But since they took it, in the words of Lincoln --last quote--we ceased to be free and , in my opinion, the 10th amendment was nullified.

 

http://www.robgagnon.net/JeffersonOnJudicialTyranny.htm

http://www.clayjenkinson.com/thomas-jefferson-and-the-supreme-court/#

 

[PeteF 1,044]

1 hour ago, JohnnyB said:

When the Supreme Court Justices rule based on what THEY THINK the Constitution SHOULD mean based on their feelings, we as a nation will soon cease to exist!

The job of the Supreme Court is actually quite simple! Interpret the words written therein the WAY THEY WERE WRITTEN by the very wise and foreseeing people who wrote them in the first place!

Could you imagine if any contract was "interpreted" the way the Constitution is?

[AVB-AMG 530]

11 hours ago, JohnnyB said:

When the Supreme Court Justices rule based on what THEY THINK the Constitution SHOULD mean based on their feelings, we as a nation will soon cease to exist!

The job of the Supreme Court is actually quite simple! Interpret the words written therein the WAY THEY WERE WRITTEN by the very wise and foreseeing people who wrote them in the first place!

@JohnnyB:

I am not surprised that you and most others here in NJGF side with the “Originalist” approprach to interpreting our constitution.  That is fine, as you all are part of the 46% of the U.S. population that holds that view.  I do not share that approach, since I agree with the approximate 49% of the U.S. population that takes the “Modernist” approprach to interpreting our constitution.  This has been the defecto split reality for at least the past 50+ years and our country has not “ceased to exist”, nor will it.  Hence the important significance of who the POTUS is who will be able to nominate new Justices to the SCOTUS when vacancies do arise.  I think we agree that that was one of the biggest concerns for voters in the 2016 election.

Also, as I have advocated in several other threads here on NJGF, I am all for the idea of instituting a 20 year term limit for all Justices on the SCOTUS.  That would help by removing Justices who MAY begin showing signs of dementia as they reach their mid-70’s.  It also allows whomever the POTUS is at that time, regardless of party affiliation, to keep cycling new and younger Justices to the court.

AVB-AMG

[JimB1 555]

I find it funny that people say the Constitution should be interpreted for modern views. I actually know quite a few historians and archeologists and they constantly talk about viewing the past in the terms of the past not though a modern lens if you want to understand the people and the place. To view history through modern eyes is prejudicial and in many cases limits understanding. 

To judge people in their times without historical and cultural context is to blind yourself to all else beside your own narrow view of time and place. How is that different from ISIS destroying temples and monuments because they do not support their "modern" view of Islam? They reject that there is a reality outside the one they "know to be true". Rather then adjust their view to encompass the fact that there are other truths outside the ones they know, they destroy objects that conflict with their view so they can continue to "interperet" history to match their modern values and beliefs. Those other people in history were "wrong" in their view and so their customs, beliefs, writings, architecture and everything about their world should be erased so that their modern view is not contested.

This is the problem with "Interpereting" historic documents. The actual meaning can be completely lost when the context under which the document was written is discarded from the interpretation. When people say "the Constitution is an out dated document" it is apparent that they are looking though modern eyes only so to them it is, and should be abandoned as a relic or destroyed to make way for "modern views" of government. 

The only way the Supreme Court can exist is as a body that views the Constitution within the historic context it was written and applies that to modern situations. Not an easy task to be sure but to do otherwise can only lead to arbitrary rulings based on political feelings not rule of law and the Supreme Court becomes not a judicial body but a law making body which is far outside any "interpretation" of what they are supposed to be.

Just some thoughts...

-Jim

[AVB-AMG 530]

Just to be clear, the following is my understanding of the most recent US Supreme Court rulings addressing the 2nd Amendment issue. If I have missed something, please point it out.

Thanks….

AVB-AMG

In its 2008 decision on the District of Columbia vs. Heller, a 5-4 majority of the US Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the D.C. provisions banning handguns and requiring firearms in the home disassembled or locked, violate this right.

In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis.

The Court then considered the 2nd Amendment’s introductory or prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause.

The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment. The Court asserted that its prior precedent was not inconsistent with its interpretation.

It is important to remember that 4 Justices dissented, each of which signed both of 2 dissenting opinions. One, by Justice Stevens, examined historical evidence on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment to conclude that the amendment protects militia-related interests. A second dissenting opinion, by Justice Breyer, stated that even if the 2nd Amendment protects a separate interest in individual self-defense, the District of Columbia provisions at issue are permissible forms of regulation.

The outcome of D.C. v. Heller left some issues unanswered, including whether the 2nd Amendment restricts state regulation of firearms, and the standard for evaluating the constitutionality of other laws and regulations that impact the 2nd Amendment right. These issues will be the subject of future litigation.

In 2010 the Supreme Court in McDonald vs. City of Chicago, ruled that the 2nd Amendment right recognized that Heller applies not only to the Federal Government, but also to states and municipalities.

[Zeke 5,504]

25 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

Just to be clear, the following is my understanding of the most recent US Supreme Court rulings addressing the 2nd Amendment issue. If I have missed something, please point it out.

Thanks….

AVB-AMG

In its 2008 decision on the District of Columbia vs. Heller, a 5-4 majority of the US Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the D.C. provisions banning handguns and requiring firearms in the home disassembled or locked, violate this right.

In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis.

The Court then considered the 2nd Amendment’s introductory or prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause.

The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment. The Court asserted that its prior precedent was not inconsistent with its interpretation.

It is important to remember that 4 Justices dissented, each of which signed both of 2 dissenting opinions. One, by Justice Stevens, examined historical evidence on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment to conclude that the amendment protects militia-related interests. A second dissenting opinion, by Justice Breyer, stated that even if the 2nd Amendment protects a separate interest in individual self-defense, the District of Columbia provisions at issue are permissible forms of regulation.

The outcome of D.C. v. Heller left some issues unanswered, including whether the 2nd Amendment restricts state regulation of firearms, and the standard for evaluating the constitutionality of other laws and regulations that impact the 2nd Amendment right. These issues will be the subject of future litigation.

In 2010 the Supreme Court in McDonald vs. City of Chicago, ruled that the 2nd Amendment right recognized that Heller applies not only to the Federal Government, but also to states and municipalities.

 Missing Cateano v Mass

[AVB-AMG 530]

2 hours ago, JimB1 said:

The only way the Supreme Court can exist is as a body that views the Constitution within the historic context it was written and applies that to modern situations. Not an easy task to be sure but to do otherwise can only lead to arbitrary rulings based on political feelings not rule of law and the Supreme Court becomes not a judicial body but a law making body which is far outside any "interpretation" of what they are supposed to be.

Just some thoughts...

-Jim

@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

[AVB-AMG 530]

22 minutes ago, Zeke said:

 Missing Cateano v Mass

@Zeke:

You are correct to add this.  I was not focusing on stun guns, but that case is certainly applicable and is a further demonstration of the current SCOTUS stand and interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

AVB-AMG

[Zeke 5,504]

Just now, AVB-AMG said:

Zeke:

You are correct to add this.  I was not focusing on stun guns, but that case is certainly applicable and is a further demonstration of the current SCOTUS stand and interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

AVB-AMG

Conceal carry of firearms was Mass argument. It is pertinent to firearms as well as “ less lethal “ devices.

 

Facts and emotions are like yin and yang. Never the to shall mix. Ideal, vs real.

I too can understand people’s “ feelings “ but it does not change the real. If you follow.

Another important case , the name escapes me, the police do not have liability to protect the individuals..

[EX Carnival man 223]

 The threat from our own government NEVER changes with time. The 2nd amendment's not about the British are coming or hunting. That document was written by brilliant men with forward thinking minds. We can thank them for over 200 years of freedom. 

[AVB-AMG 530]

13 hours ago, Paulie Buffo said:

AVB-AMG : "I believe that firing 10 rounds or less should be sufficient to neutralize the threat of 1-2 intruders".

Most of us are not as an amazing shot as you in an emergency situation - especially under fire. 

Criminals breaking into a home or business will be prepared with massive capacity magazines or worse (full auto) for all you know.  If you are defending your wife and children do you really want a fair fight? I don't want a "fair" fight. I want an overwhelming force to stop them immediately. You are defending your loved ones - at least fight to posses the best defensive options you can.

BTW: it we did enact your proposed "rules", then how long before you want additional restrictions. What guarantee would be given that there will be no additional laws - you would never get one. I once believed in compromise but it seems the compromise in only one way.  Do you not hear what the anti-gunners are saying : "If they give an inch, we'll take a mile", "we will not compromise", "repeal the second amendment". 

Its sad but there is not way to deal with people won't even listen to what you have to say.

sorry I ranted so long. peace.

@Paulie Buffo:

I am by no means an "amazing shot" and recognize that in an actual break-in event, my adrenaline would be pumping fast and that my cognitive and motor skills will be somewhat compromised.  I am not looking for a "fair" fight, but do believe that I have a number of defensive advantages to successfully defend myself and family from the most likely break-in scenario involving 1-2 perpetrators.  At this point, other than what I listed in my relevant post in this thread, I am not looking for any other additional gun laws to be enacted.  From everything I have written on this forum should make clear, please do not make the mistake of lumping me in with the extreme "Anti-Gun" crowd, since I do not agree with them.  I am NOT and WILL NOT advocate for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.  Having said that, I think it is quite possible that it could be repealed and may happen at some point in the distant future, but not in my/our life time.

AVB-AMG

12 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:

First, I agree with everything Paulie B. just said. Second, that same line in AVB's message jumped right out at me, too, but for this slightly different reason: who's to say there's only 1-2 intruders? That's a rather big assumption, isn't it?

I'm sure that MOST of the time, 1-2 intruders is, in fact, the most common scenario. However, I think one of the scariest crime trends (bone-chilling, really) to get press coverage in recent years was what they gave coined a "home invasion" - where MULTIPLE intruders, like 3 or more, storm into someone's home all at once as an overwhelming force. Can you even imagine the terror? So, now imagine you've got that same 10 rounds, you're firing under extreme duress as Paulie B. mentioned (sweating palms, tunnel vision, all the other physical stress effects that can kick in and severely degrade accuracy)... and, worse yet, you've also got several moving targets swarming around... possibly armed and shooting back. When you think about that scenario, well... 10 rounds doesn't sound quite so ample, does it?

@Mrs. Peel:

National historical crime statistics show that by far that the vast majority of house break-ins are by 1-2 unprofessional young thugs looking for easy access inside the home to steal items that they can quickly sell/fence for cash to buy drugs to support their addiction.  Home invasions involving 3+ people, as you describe are extremely rare.  

To be clear, in addition to the loaded handgun, currently with a 15 round magazine, but soon to be swapped out for a 10 round magazine, that is located in a bedside gun safe, I also have two (2) additional fully loaded magazines in the same gun safe.  In the case of a break-in, I could take one or more of those additional magazines and put them in the pocket of my PJ's/Lounge Pants, in case I needed additional rounds.  I don't think I would need them, but I would have them, just in case.  Still, I do not believe that 15 additional rounds (45 minus 30), would really make all that difference in a shoot out with the intruders.  If I cannot stop the threat by firing 30 rounds, I don't think I will be able to do so by shooting 15 additional rounds.  

So that is what I have prepared for.  So between my legal purchase, ownership and training with my firearms, along with other home security alarm measures we have instituted, proximity of our neighbors affording audible/visible oversight on our home and the response time of our local PD, I feel reasonably and comfortably safe.  My analogy is that if I am flying in an airplane that is about to make a crash landing, it really does not matter if my seat back is in the reclined position or the fully upright position... Realistically, I will probably die either way.  

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 since I would have no pockets for the additional loaded magazines.  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, as well as instinctively drop any of our material possessions and motivate them to immediately flee our house, as quickly as possible, screaming down the street.  You see, I have really thought this through....

AVB-AMG

[AVB-AMG 530]

36 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Another important case , the name escapes me, the police do not have liability to protect the individuals..

Zeke:

Like you, I am aware of that case and do not expect our local police force to protect me or my family from robbers during an attempted break-in while we are home.  In that scenario of a home break-in situation, the local PD will in most cases just be responding to the crime, after the fact, to file a report.  It is highly doubtful that they would immediately apprehend the fleeing perpetrators.  If, by chance, the buggerlers trip the home security system, then their is theoretically a grater chance that the local PD could possibly apprehend the buggerlers in the act or as they are departing the house. 
This is one of the key motivating factors for me and others to legally purchase, obtain and learn how to accurately shoot firearms for self/home defense.

AVB-AMG

[Zeke 5,504]

2 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

Zeke:

Like you, I am aware of that case and do not expect our local police force to protect me or my family from robbers during an attempted break-in while we are home.  In that scenario of a home break-in situation, the local PD will in most cases just be responding to the crime, after the fact, to file a report.  It is highly doubtful that they would immediately apprehend the fleeing perpetrators.  If, by chance, the buggerlers trip the home security system, then their is theoretically a grater chance that the local PD could possibly apprehend the buggerlers in the act or as they are departing the house. 
This is one of the key motivating factors for me and others to legally purchase, obtain and learn how to accurately shoot firearms for self/home defense.

AVB-AMG

But you are missing the underlying debate. If the state claims no liability for personal life, how can they deny an individual the liberty to protect personal life? Someone has to be responsible/ liable.