Armed Polite Society

Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: HeroHog on November 20, 2018, 10:31:50 PM

Title: The First Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to make law by fiat
Post by: HeroHog on November 20, 2018, 10:31:50 PM: https://www.ammoland.com/2018/11/first-circuit-rules-there-is-no-right-to-bear-arms-outside-the-home/
Title: Re: The First Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to make law by fiat
Post by: gunsmith on November 20, 2018, 10:52:04 PM: hopefully it leads to a SCOTUS win and we finally get national reciprocity.
Title: Re: Re: The First Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to make law by fiat
Post by: lupinus on November 21, 2018, 08:37:23 AM: Quote from: gunsmith on November 20, 2018, 10:52:04 PM
hopefully it leads to a SCOTUS win and we finally get national reciprocity.
The only better time would be if Ginsburg croaks and we get a decent replacement.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The First Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to make law by fiat
Post by: Ben on November 21, 2018, 08:56:14 AM: So where would one then bear arms? You keep arms in the home and bear them outside the home.
Title: Re: The First Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to make law by fiat
Post by: MechAg94 on November 21, 2018, 09:40:17 AM: Quote from: Ben on November 21, 2018, 08:56:14 AM
So where would one then bear arms? You keep arms in the home and bear them outside the home.
As part of the Army or National Guard of course. Only federally regulated militias get 2nd Amendment protection (until they don't).
Title: Re: The First Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to make law by fiat
Post by: Hawkmoon on November 21, 2018, 10:36:52 AM: Quote from: MechAg94 on November 21, 2018, 09:40:17 AM
As part of the Army or National Guard of course. Only federally regulated militias get 2nd Amendment protection (until they don't).

Especially in Massachusetts. It's ironic that Massachusetts, the birthplace of the American Revolution, has a state constitution that protects the right to keep and bear arms only as a collective right ("in defense of the state"). I know this is about the U.S. Constitution, but judges from Massachusetts probably can't help having been contaminated by Massachusetts' thinking. (Even so, it takes a lot of mental legerdemain to pull an "only in the home" interpretation out of Heller and McDonald.)