GOP Lawmaker Betting on Trump to Push New Concealed Carry Law

[shotgunshooter]

Anyone have any information about the 2nd Amendment caucus that Republicans have formed?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Randall53]

Here's an article that gives the inaugural members of the Caucus:

2nd amendment caucus

Edited December 14, 2016 by Randall53

[quickbiscuit]

As I understand it they are just reviving an old caucus that existed from 04-08 and 09-13.

[macville]

21 hours ago, JAB said:

As I pointed out in the post, above, even very early on - when people who might even have known the Founders were still very much alive and active - the courts ruled that the right of the People to bear arms applies to such bearing of arms as is necessary for the common defense, just like the document says.  Further, TN courts ruled that 'bearing' arms is not a personal, individual right but is, instead, a political right of the People as a whole - i.e. the People or the citizenry as a whole when acting in the common defense of the People as a whole not individuals acting in personal defense.  This means that, while the antis' argument that the right is somehow tied to being in the National Guard, etc. is obviously complete B.S. as it is a right of the People (as a whole, not individually) the argument that there is somehow a right to carry for individual, personal protection also does not hold up to scrutiny.  Now, I'm not saying I like it - I don't - but it is there in black and white from courts of the time.  Further, as exemplified above, those courts found that owning weapons - especially military style arms - is a personal, individual right that cannot be regulated by the government.  So, in short - as much as I don't like it - even the precedents from the time when state and federal constitutions were being written state that there is no constitutionally protected right to edc a firearm for personal protection, presumably from the government or anyone else and that state regulations on the carry or 'wearing' of arms do not violate the Constitution.  However, those same courts set a precedent that there is a constitutionally protected right to own, say, a fully automatic rifle without any government interference.  This means that the state government and (based on the writings of Madison who actually wrote most of the Bill of Rights) the federal government have no right to restrict, limit or ban the ownership of any type of personal arm and that applies especially to 'military style arms' - the very types of arms that the antis specifically say they want to ban, the very type of arms that the antis argue no one 'needs' and the very types of arms which often currently require an unconstitutional tax stamp before one can 'legally' own them.

The reason I think we as gun rights advocates should vehemently point out those rulings and precedents, even though it would mean admitting that there really isn't any such thing as Constitutional carry when it comes to personal defense, is that they do not allow the government to restrict ownership of the very types of arms we would need if we ever did have to act upon the real reason 'the right to bear arms' is protected in order to curtail a tyrannical government.  By allowing the Second Amendment to be changed by the courts into something that simply applies to carrying a handgun for personal protection or owning a shotgun for home defense we are also allowing, as an unintended consequence, Constitutional protection for the ownership of military style arms to be swept under the rug.  I'd rather have a system where states can regulate the carrying of arms for personal protection and, in Tennessee, I can get an HCP to carry - even if I have to pay for it - and the government cannot regulate the ownership of personal arms, period than a system where the Second Amendment means I can carry my J-frame but the government can tell us what firearms we can or can't own.  I am certainly not a lawyer but I can read pretty well and the way the law is written and was ruled upon during or near the time it was written it appears that it really is either one or the other.

Here's my problem with that. Even if the founding fathers and writers of our state constitution (more about that later) really only meant for protection against a standing army (which we currently have, so what about the constitutionally of that?) and our government, they didn't state that clearly in the 2d amendment. It's amazing how people think the 1st amendment should be taken at face value (one of it's intents was protection against the government!), but the 2d shouldn't? (that pesky comma (originally a semi-colon) and the word "people" instead of "militia" make a huge difference.) It really doesn't matter anyone's intent, it matters what's actually written down when it comes to law (at least it's supposed to!) We saw this issue with the parking lots law two years ago where lawmakers like Ramsey were saying "well, we intended it to protect workers", but we mostly agree here that the actual wording doesn't protect workers from firing at all. Judges use the word "intent" as a fancy way to ignore the words written. Yes, we have to understand what the words like "well regulated" mean because that phrase was used a certain way back then that's not the same day, but research hasn't shown that the words "people" and "infringed" hasn't changed in english since the late 1700's. That constitution wording can really be taken at face value and it was supposed to be.

Now about court decisions. The problem with our legal system and how it decides legality of laws is that it relies way too heavily on other legal cases. I encourage everyone to read this op-ed piece by former Justice John Paul Stevens (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html?utm_term=.04797c7f8e29) as it's a prime example of citing horrible former decisions and wanting to legislate from the bench. Here are some of the real doozies from it:

Quote

For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”

What's interesting about the first sentence is Stevens is a fan of trumping states rights in many cases, but for some reason in this issue he's all about states rights. He also willfully ignores the 10th and 14th amendments, which both have been repeatedly affirmed by the SC (if he wants to refer to former court cases as a basis for his argument.) The entire constitution either applies  or it doesn't.

He refers to the Miller case, but strangely leaves out any details except the final ruling. Details such as, the previous judge (a gun control proponent in congress before becoming a judge) ruled in millers favor (which his argument was simply quoting the 2d amendment), but his ruling was designed to push the case to the SC and that when the SC took it up, the defendant (a bank robber) wouldn't show up to defend himself or the constitution. You start reading the argument by SC and it's pretty crazy. But here's the real kicker, the SC heard arguments from the government but NO ONE argued for Miller. So Stevens is citing a case that is the definition of one sided (setup to be so from the beginning!) To see a former SC justice quote such a case should give us all great pause about judges using other case law to decide the law. But this issue is bigger than just gun law, this issue permeates all aspects of the law. It's amazing how many cases I'll look up when I see a case cited and and flabbergasted at the ruling in the original case.

I would encourage ANYONE who says they support the second amendment to read this doc (http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf) and the original ruling (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174) and then the Heller and McDonald rulings  (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-1521) It's amazing how the two latter cases TOTALLY contradict the rulings of Miller case (people's right vs militia's) but also how the two latter also didn't take it to the full logical conclusion-aka don't want to deal with the politics of actual liberty.

Quote

Legislatures are in a far better position than judges to assess the wisdom of such rules and to evaluate the costs and benefits that rule changes can be expected to produce. It is those legislators, rather than federal judges, who should make the decisions that will determine what kinds of firearms should be available to private citizens, and when and how they may be used. Constitutional provisions that curtail the legislative power to govern in this area unquestionably do more harm than good.

I dissented in both of those cases and remain convinced that both decisions misinterpreted the law and were profoundly unwise. Public policies concerning gun control should be decided by the voters’ elected representatives, not by federal judges.

What's amazing is that, even states like IL have it in their constitution that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So the state constitution says a right to bear arms, but that's somehow ignored by him? What's even more frustrating is that he thinks, in this case, the states should decide, but in other cases he's all about zero states rights. He is inconsistent beyond belief. But that's why I bolded part of his statement above. It shows, by his own words, that he's really more interested in the political outcome (his) than the actual rule of law. I am sure that he would have voted for the gay marriage issue if could have, even though it was a states rights issue.

 

I honestly believe that we will never have consistency in the ruling of law because there are too many people that are about their own political purpose than what the Constitution and law actually says.

[diamondback]

they recognize marriages ( gay ones now) and licenses from different states. Your right to protect yourself should not end at a state's borders. A few states I have to travel to have pretty weird laws I hate dealing with DC, MD and NJ when I go up to PA or DE for business.