In my state of NC, we require no permit to carry a gun......but i agree with the end of your statement.
I did not know that
@Shaun52 was a veteran, although a cocksucker, I wish we got on better terms earlier in my involvement here............but we should be able to have any weapon we qualifed or trained with in the military.
The 2nd specifically protects military style arms, and nothing else, an ironic twist indeed.
Actually, there are some things to consider. The
first time the United States Supreme Court addressed these issues regarding the Second Amendment, they
held:
"
The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.
...The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
United States v. Cruikshan
k, 92 U.S. 542
(1876)
The holdings of the United States Supreme Court are the law. IF the statutes, lower court holdings, etc.
conflict with the United States Supreme Court holdings, those statutes and lower court holdings are invalidated. Correct? Conversely, if the high Court doesn't specifically over-rule the standing precedents of lower courts, etc. then those statutes and rulings are valid law. Correct? The issue is then figuring out how lower courts interpreted the Second Amendment in that period before Cruikshank.
In
1822 in the case of
Bliss v. Commonwealth it was said of the Right:
As noted in the Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: "
Rights in Conflict in the 1980s, vol. 10, no. 1, 1982, p. 155, "The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire", ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the "
right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."
In
1846 the Georgia Supreme Court held:
"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."
The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and
not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.
Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!
In
1859, in the state of Texas, the state held:
“The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."
Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859) Granted, this court did specify that "arms" referred to those arms carried by a militiaman that were being protected. Yet the Right to carry arms in lawful defense of one's self would logically be included.
So, what happened in 2008 when the United States Supreme Court held that the right is "
not unlimited?" The answer is simply that the high Court has gotten into the habit of reinterpreting their own holdings. Previously, the courts ruled that the Right to keep and bear Arms is an absolute Right, preexisting, natural, above the law, inherent, irrevocable and the Right is
not granted by the government. It is an extension of your Right to Life. But, the courts applied the
illegally ratified 14th Amendment to the equation and tried to claim that the high Court bestowed the Right on you. They even used the word
unlimited as it had not been legally defined. What can you do? I'm only giving you some bare bones; however, there ARE things you can do right now that won't get you thrown into jail or get you sent to Hell. I'll save that just in case this is considered TLDR
reason.com
