Rethinking 30.06

[Charles L. Cotton]

The SCOTUS is not always right.

I wholeheartedly agree, but it's their opinion that establishes what is and is not constitutional.

Chas.

[EEllis]

The SCOTUS is not always right.

Not really a legal argument tho.

[C-dub]

The SCOTUS is not always right.

Not really a legal argument tho.

True, but there are many examples of them overturning prior decisions of earlier SCOTUS'. Many were due to social or political reasons and not based on actual law or constitutional principles. Our current discussion is an excellent example. So far, you have only pointed to the court's decisions that have said restricting the method of bearing arms is constitutional, but haven't pointed to any part of the 2A that would even hint at how that is possible.

The SCOTUS once ruled that it was legal to prohibit interracial marriages only to be overturned several decades later pointing out that there was legal basis for the original decision.

[EEllis]

The SCOTUS is not always right.

Not really a legal argument tho.

True, but there are many examples of them overturning prior decisions of earlier SCOTUS'. Many were due to social or political reasons and not based on actual law or constitutional principles. Our current discussion is an excellent example. So far, you have only pointed to the court's decisions that have said restricting the method of bearing arms is constitutional, but haven't pointed to any part of the 2A that would even hint at how that is possible.

Why would I need to? That is the current default standard. Until someone make a better argument than "That's not the way I read the 2nd" why should I? That and it gets pretty far afield if every time someone makes an unsupported claim about the 2nd I not only have to state the current legal situation but the complete justification for what the courts currently hold.

[anygunanywhere]

The SCOTUS is not always right.

Exactly. Blatantly obvious. When God given rights are slowly eroded away regardless who does the infringing and who supports it the erosion is still wrong. Also, regardless of how many times you claim a lie to be a truth it never is true.

[EEllis]

The SCOTUS is not always right.

Exactly. Blatantly obvious. When God given rights are slowly eroded away regardless who does the infringing and who supports it the erosion is still wrong. Also, regardless of how many times you claim a lie to be a truth it never is true.

Kind of funny because I feel the same way about those who believe the constitution protects a right to carry anything anywhere. They seem to ignore that no court has ever agreed and at no time in the history of the country has that belief ever been supported by even large minority of the public but I keep hearing the same assertions anyway.

[anygunanywhere]

The SCOTUS is not always right.

Exactly. Blatantly obvious. When God given rights are slowly eroded away regardless who does the infringing and who supports it the erosion is still wrong. Also, regardless of how many times you claim a lie to be a truth it never is true.

Kind of funny because I feel the same way about those who believe the constitution protects a right to carry anything anywhere. They seem to ignore that no court has ever agreed and at no time in the history of the country has that belief ever been supported by even large minority of the public but I keep hearing the same assertions anyway.

I wasn't talking about RKBA and there is nothing funny about what I was referring to in the most blatant error SCOTUS ever made. All rights can be infringed.

[EEllis]

The SCOTUS is not always right.

Exactly. Blatantly obvious. When God given rights are slowly eroded away regardless who does the infringing and who supports it the erosion is still wrong. Also, regardless of how many times you claim a lie to be a truth it never is true.

Kind of funny because I feel the same way about those who believe the constitution protects a right to carry anything anywhere. They seem to ignore that no court has ever agreed and at no time in the history of the country has that belief ever been supported by even large minority of the public but I keep hearing the same assertions anyway.

I wasn't talking about RKBA and there is nothing funny about what I was referring to in the most blatant error SCOTUS ever made. All rights can be infringed.

I find that it funny that two "sides" can use the same rhetoric about an issue. If you are not referring to the "RKBA" then I really don't know what you are going on about and as such I'm really not going to be real worried about it. Maybe being clearer would help? Or whatever......

[Winchster]

Has anyone considered that the Bill of Rights protects us from the government and not from individuals?
We have no constitutional "right" to enter private property. We do have the right to enter public property. Those arguing against a business right to set the conditions for entry are really arguing that said property is not under the control of the owner. The sign is merely an announcement of the conditions. Y'all seem to be ok with oral notice , so would you prefer an announcement over the PA every 5 minutes instead?

[EEllis]

Has anyone considered that the Bill of Rights protects us from the government and not from individuals?
We have no constitutional "right" to enter private property. We do have the right to enter public property. Those arguing against a business right to set the conditions for entry are really arguing that said property is not under the control of the owner. The sign is merely an announcement of the conditions. Y'all seem to be ok with oral notice , so would you prefer an announcement over the PA every 5 minutes instead?

I think the constitutional argument is a non issue. That being said when a person opens a business they can and do give up a lot of control to the government. There are licences and regulations from building regs and bathrooms to what you can sell, hours you can operate, and a host of other things. It would be perfectly legal to mandate businesses open to the general public to be allowed to bar legally carried firearms. That isn't really a issue. The state could pass that law and it would be legal. I just don't think that being able to do so would make it right. I think people should be able to bar anyone from their business, not including protected classes because that's a separate issue to me, and preventing them from doing so is wrong. I also think trying to increase the burden on restricting access is just a way to bully people into not baring firearms. I don't like the whole idea.

[anygunanywhere]

Or whatever......

Exactly. Whatever.

I don't place my entire belief system on what the courts determine.

[EEllis]

Or whatever......

Exactly. Whatever.

I don't place my entire belief system on what the courts determine.

Or tell anyone what the heck you are talking about........

[C-dub]

The SCOTUS is not always right.

Not really a legal argument tho.

True, but there are many examples of them overturning prior decisions of earlier SCOTUS'. Many were due to social or political reasons and not based on actual law or constitutional principles. Our current discussion is an excellent example. So far, you have only pointed to the court's decisions that have said restricting the method of bearing arms is constitutional, but haven't pointed to any part of the 2A that would even hint at how that is possible.

Why would I need to? That is the current default standard. Until someone make a better argument than "That's not the way I read the 2nd" why should I? That and it gets pretty far afield if every time someone makes an unsupported claim about the 2nd I not only have to state the current legal situation but the complete justification for what the courts currently hold.

You should because you claim that it doesn't. I challenged you to offer anything from it that does allow for the method of bearing arms to be restricted. And you have also ignored the fact that the scotus has been wrong before and unless you can point to something in the 2A that backs up your claim, could be wrong on this issue. Give me something other than because they say so, please.

Being able to bear arms anywhere was supported when the BoR was ratified. It only slowly began to be whittled away much later after the founders were no longer around to defend it. People and courts reasoned that they couldn't have possibly meant this or that or here or there, yet there were no such qualifiers written into the 2A. None. There is no ambiguity in it. There has only been speculation that the authors and those that ratified it couldn't possibly have foreseen all the future advancements or issues. You think they didn't have criminals or crazy people back then? In fact, IIRC, many states used to have laws that required them to provide convicts being released from prison a firearm with bullets and a horse after the completion of their sentence because they had wording to this effect in their constitutions; "The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question."

[Glockster]

Again, my focus is upon the fact that one is a constitutional right and I believe it is beyond unfair to suspend my rights on property wherein the public has been invited.

But carrying concealed isn't a constitutional right. Then there is the fact that speech, which is a constitutional right, doesn't mean that business owners can't stop all speech in a business by use of trespass if they so feel. IMHO not a effective legal or moral argument.

I think though that there is a difference. Let's assume for a moment that the business opened its doors for a specific purpose - say, to sell widgets. If someone enters that business for the purpose of exercising their right to free speech, that is in a sense a breach, as the purpose of the business was not to provide a place for freedom of speech. It was to sell widgets. And the business has a valid reason for asking the customer to leave. And opening the doors to the public for the purpose of inviting that public to potentially purchase a widget is an offering for purpose. Said customer enters for that purpose, if said business owner then for no valid business purpose arbitrarily rescinds that offer, a consumer can likely have a recourse. And I know a gun rights attorney in VA who has made that same argument regarding gun purchases and offers to sell then being breached. Think of it as advertising and entering is an acceptance by the customer. A customer could claim breach. So the purpose of the free speeches is clearly different than that of a customer who accepted the offer to sell a widget.

Please note that I didn't say that CC was a constitutional right, just that there is a right to bear arms. It is the state that has imposed a restriction upon how that right is exercised. My point in the above is that IF you go to a business that has extended an offer to you for the purpose of purchasing a widget, then the fact that you are exercising your right to bear arms has no relevance upon that acceptance. And for that reason I believe that a business open to the public has an obligation (a good lawyer can discuss the legal implication of an offer to sell and then refusing to do so) to then let you in to complete that purchase. I can't imagine a consumer being excused from completing a purchase having for example, made a deposit via the phone, because they are barred from entering with a weapon. So should the business owner be compelled to account for my constitutional right to carry my weapon. Otherwise, show me where I received any advance warning of that irrational fear of my gun and how that should be allowed to prevent me from completing the transaction or from accepting the implied offer to transact by being open to the public. If they refuse to allow for guns, then where is that advance warning that a person exercising their right to bear arms cannot shop there. A 30.06 notification addresses a trespass, not a restriction upon any implied offer to transact business.

[EEllis]

You should because you claim that it doesn't. I challenged you to offer anything from it that does allow for the method of bearing arms to be restricted. And you have also ignored the fact that the scotus has been wrong before and unless you can point to something in the 2A that backs up your claim, could be wrong on this issue. Give me something other than because they say so, please.

Being able to bear arms anywhere was supported when the BoR was ratified. It only slowly began to be whittled away much later after the founders were no longer around to defend it. People and courts reasoned that they couldn't have possibly meant this or that or here or there, yet there were no such qualifiers written into the 2A. None. There is no ambiguity in it. There has only been speculation that the authors and those that ratified it couldn't possibly have foreseen all the future advancements or issues. You think they didn't have criminals or crazy people back then? In fact, IIRC, many states used to have laws that required them to provide convicts being released from prison a firearm with bullets and a horse after the completion of their sentence because they had wording to this effect in their constitutions; "The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question."

I claim? It isn't my opinion it's a fact that SCOTUS decides and what they say doesn't agree with you. I will not debate or defend what is anymore than I would argue about gravity. No if in another thread I would be glad to discuss it but in this context I don't agree that I must somehow defend every position that SCOTUS ever takes if someone disagrees with them. Oh and you also are wrong on the facts. If there were no ambiguity then we wouldn't be having the discussion. The 2nd was never legally held to mean what you believe and it was never held as such by the majority of the people. That is just the facts. Telling me that I now need to prove it? Believe what you want. I actually checked and researched the issue before making my statement. Did you check or are you repeating things people have said?