[quote]Tomorrow, May 2, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether to hear New Jersey's firearms law as to whether firearm possession is a privilege or a right. Most libertarians would consider the Second Amendment to read that it is an inherent right for the People to keep and bear arms, and that right should not be infringed.
The case is Drake v. Jerejian whereas John M. Drake was denied his right to carry a concealed handgun. New Jersey state law states that unless a normal citizen has a life endangering reason to carry a firearm, then they will not be permitted to do so. The only other instance once may receive a concealed carry permit in New Jersey, is if it is needed for their profession, such as a security guard.
Specifically at issue before the court would be: (1) Whether the Second Amendment secures a right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense; and (2) whether state officials violate the Second Amendment by requiring that individuals wishing to exercise their right to carry a handgun for self-defense first prove a “justifiable need” for doing so.[/quote]
[url=http://www.examiner.com/article/u-s-supreme-court-to-consider-nj-gun-law]Examiner[/url]
This is a case that's on par with Miller v. District of Columbia. If it passes, it'll ensure that almost any state or city standard that goes against the concealed carry of handguns is unconstitutional as decided by the 2nd Amendment. It'll also ratify that any, "May Issue" state will be forced to become a "Shall Issue" or Constitutional Carry state.
[url=http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-827.htm]US Supreme Court: Drake v. Jerejian[/url]
[url=http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/drake_cert_petition_FILED1.pdf]Amazon News PDF[/url]
I really hope they overturn may issue. I honestly can't see how there is an interpretation of something that says "shall not be infringed".
Price of ammo's going up again.
I'm curious to see if they'll find a way to dodge giving a direct answer on the issue, they've done that on a few issues in the past.
[QUOTE=Grimhound;44697110]Price of ammo's going up again.[/QUOTE]
People saying shit like this is exactly why that happens in the first place.
[QUOTE=Grimhound;44697110]Price of ammo's going up again.[/QUOTE]
it's already "up"
Living right outside of Camden and having to travel there regularly I'd (personally) feel a lot safer with less guns around. Legal or not. I and many other NJ residents are perfectly happy with our guns laws and would like them to remain the way they are.
[QUOTE=Winters;44697942]Living right outside of Camden and having to travel there regularly I'd (personally) feel a lot safer with less guns around. Legal or not. I and many other NJ residents are perfectly happy with our guns laws and would like them to remain the way they are.[/QUOTE]
I live in New Jersey (about an hour or two from you) and I disagree. I'd like to have easier, legal access to firearms.
I, as well live in NJ. I hope someday we can conceal carry.
[QUOTE=Winters;44697942]Living right outside of Camden and having to travel there regularly I'd (personally) feel a lot safer with less guns around. Legal or not. I and many other NJ residents are perfectly happy with our guns laws and would like them to remain the way they are.[/QUOTE]
And you, along with the rest of the residents, would be wrong. I understand the knee-jerk reaction, but understand that when making laws, that is the absolute last thing you want. How you [I]feel[/I] has little to no bearing on how things [I]are[/I]. Producing laws based on feelings is potentially quite dangerous.
[url]http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol71/iss4/15/[/url]
A meta analysis of 29 peer reviewed publications in the Maryland Law review.
The breakdown works out to this: 18 publications found a statistically significant decrease in crime rates, 10 found no statistically significant change, and one found a temporary statistically significant increase in aggravated assault.
There is a reason that since the mid 1980's a massive number of US states have swapped over to "shall issue". They aren't stupid, they just can't mount a defense against the proposed changes because concealed carry either does nothing to crime rates (in which case why ban it.) or it reduces them.
[QUOTE=darkrei9n;44697099]I really hope they overturn may issue. I honestly can't see how there is an interpretation of something that says "shall not be infringed".[/QUOTE]
I had no idea that John Drake is a member of a well regulated militia.
[QUOTE=Omali;44700334]I had no idea that John Drake is a member of a well regulated militia.[/QUOTE]
As a male over the age of 18 he is considered a member of the militia.
[quote]The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.[/quote]
Please try again.
[QUOTE=darkrei9n;44700400]As a male over the age of 18 he is considered a member of the militia.
Please try again.[/QUOTE]
Ah, but the next part says:
[quote]
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.[/quote]
Unorganized doesn't sound like "well regulated" to me! QED. Quid pro quo. Sic semper tyrannosaurus.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;44700505]Ah, but the next part says:
Unorganized doesn't sound like "well regulated" to me! QED. Quid pro quo. Sic semper tyrannosaurus.[/QUOTE]
"The reserve militia are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia."
:v:
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;44700540]"The reserve militia are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia."
:v:[/QUOTE]
I mainly just wanted to make a gratutious Latin joke, tbh.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;44700563]I mainly just wanted to make a gratutious Latin joke, tbh.[/QUOTE]
Ave, Nex Cubus!
Ave, Liber Pulveris!
In rebus non invenitur verum.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;44699228]I live in New Jersey (about an hour or two from you) and I disagree. I'd like to have easier, legal access to firearms.[/QUOTE]
I don't know how often you get to go into Camden or Philly but I suspect you'd have a different feeling if you often did. Having lived in North Philly for a short period of time I would've felt like far more of a target with a firearm on my person concealed or not. Someone finds out you have a gun on you, they will try to take it.
Why do people assume "bear arms" means they can have amy firearm they want and take it anywhere they want? The whole reason the US Constitution and Bill of Rights use very broad language is so they can be interpreted amd adapted to fit the current time.
I support CCW for the record but also much stricter regulation on gun purchases.
[QUOTE=darkrei9n;44697099]I really hope they overturn may issue. I honestly can't see how there is an interpretation of something that says "shall not be infringed".[/QUOTE]
Well-Regulated
[QUOTE=proboardslol;44705782]Well-Regulated[/QUOTE]
The "well-regulated" militia is stated as the reason for giving the people the right to bear arms.
The militia, under the constitution, is an arm of the federal government. Why then would the constitution need to tell the government that they can't disarm themselves? It doesn't and it isn't.
The point is that a militia is a necessary evil for the security of a free state, but because we have to institute this necessary evil, we are also giving the people the right to bear arms so that they may decrease the ability of the militia, again a necessary evil, to oppress the people.
The constitution proper covers the formation of militia. The bill of rights are about rights reserved by the [I]people. [/I]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.