Gun Control

Federal Judge Overturns Ban on Openly Carrying Guns in Public

The ruling also rejects an "assault weapon" ban, caliber restrictions for long guns, a heavy handgun tax, and registration requirements.

|

Cabela's

In a quintuple victory for Second Amendment rights, a federal judge last week overturned a ban on carrying handguns in public, a ban on so-called assault weapons, caliber restrictions for long guns, a $1,000 tax on handguns, and a requirement that all guns be registered with the government. "The individual right to armed self-defense in case of confrontation…cannot be regulated into oblivion," declared Ramona Manglona, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands.

In her September 28 ruling, Manglona notes that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (which includes the Northern Mariana Islands) has said "there is no constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon in public." But the 9th Circuit has not addressed the broader question of whether the right to armed self-defense recognized by the Supreme Court in the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller extends beyond the home. Adopting the historical analysis and logic that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit applied when it overturned an Illinois ban on carrying guns in 2012, Manglona concludes that "the Second Amendment, based on its plain language, the history described in Heller I, and common sense, must protect a right to armed self-defense in public." While "the right of armed self-defense, including in public, is subject to traditional limitations," she says, "it is not subject to elimination." Since the law enforced by the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) "completely destroys that right," Manglona writes, "it is unconstitutional regardless of the level of scrutiny applied, and the Court must strike it down."

Manglona emphasizes that she is upholding "the individual's right to carry and transport an operable handgun openly for self-defense outside the home" (emphasis added). That's because the "traditional limitations" she mentions include bans on concealed weapons. As the Supreme Court noted in Heller, "the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues." Although the open carrying of guns may clash with contemporary sensibilities, it is the mode of publicly bearing arms that is most clearly protected by the Second Amendment.

Since Heller no appeals court has upheld a complete ban on carrying guns in public, but several have upheld laws that give local authorities wide discretion to decide who may do so. In 2012 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld New York's requirement that people seeking permission to carry handguns in public show "proper cause." In 2013 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit upheld a similar New Jersey law, requiring a "justifiable need" for a carry permit, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld a Maryland law demanding a "good and substantial reason." Last month the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard a Second Amendment challenge to a D.C. law that requires carry permit applicants to show they have "good reason to fear injury," meaning they have "a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community."

Judge Manglona's rejection of the CNMI's "assault weapon" ban is almost as striking as her vindication of the right to bear arms, because she scrutinizes the law's logic instead of deferring to the supposed expertise and wisdom of legislators. The CNMI law prohibits half a dozen rifle features: 1) a pistol grip under the action of the weapon, 2) a forward pistol grip, 3) a thumbhole stock, 4) a folding or telescoping stock, 5) a flare launcher, and 6) a flash suppressor. Manglona concludes that a ban on these features cannot pass "intermediate scrutiny," which demands that a law further an important government interest through means that reasonably fit that interest.

"The Commonwealth has not shown through any evidence that its means fit its end," Manglona writes. "In fact, the evidence suggests that the banned attachments actually tend to make rifles easier to control and more accurate—making them safer to use. Because the Commonwealth's ban does not match its legitimate and important interest, the ban fails intermediate scrutiny and will be struck down."

Manglona is likewise unpersuaded that the CNMI ban on long-gun calibers larger than .223, which appears to be the only caliber limit that strict in the country, is reasonably related to public safety. The official rationale is that larger bullets travel farther, creating a greater hazard for innocent bystanders. But other factors affect a rifle's maximum range, Manglona notes, and "given the prevalence of dense jungle, hills, and buildings within the CNMI, most bullets fired from almost any gun would probably be stopped before reaching its effective range."

The exorbitant CNMI tax on handguns, which raises the cost of the cheapest pistol by almost 700 percent, is also unusual. "The power to tax is not just the power to fund the government," Manglona observes. "It is the power to destroy." Because a $1,000 tax "comes close to destroying the Second Amendment right to acquire 'the quintessential self-defense weapon,'" she writes, "the Court will strike it down."

Manglona also deemed the burden imposed by the CNMI's gun registration system, which requires a separate application for each weapon, unjustified by public safety concerns. By contrast, she upheld the commonwealth's licensing requirement for gun buyers, mainly because it goes beyond federal law by "requiring background checks for all aspiring gun owners," and not just those who purchase their firearms from federally licensed dealers. She also upheld the commonwealth's ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, saying it probably would not have much impact on self-defense and might reduce deaths in mass shootings. Manglona in any case had little choice but to uphold that restriction, since the 9th Circuit last year approved an "identical ban" imposed by Sunnyvale, California.

Manglona notes the perseverance of the plaintiff in this case, a former U.S. Army Ranger named Paul Murphy who represented himself through years of litigation. "Murphy's battle for justice began more than nine years ago when he first applied for and was denied possession and use of his firearms," she writes. "Plaintiff has valiantly pursued all lawful efforts to protect and defend his rights in a community where the voice of the majority can often overpower the equally important rights of the minority."

[via Charles Nichols]

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

118 responses to “Federal Judge Overturns Ban on Openly Carrying Guns in Public

  1. Ramona Manglona

    Would.

    1. I only work about for 12k- $15k hours a week from home. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. Join the many successful people who have already started freelancing over the web. Visit this web and go to tech tab to start your work… http://tinyurl.com/zvrrsk4

    2. I only work about for 12k- $15k hours a week from home. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. Join the many successful people who have already started freelancing over the web. Visit this web and go to tech tab to start your work… http://tinyurl.com/zvrrsk4

  2. Is it April 1st? Is this an Onion article?

    1. It will generate delicious hammy tears of statists everywhere, but that is the limit of its relation to The Onion.

    2. Not really. The judge upheld some of the gun grabbers laws:

      “By contrast, she upheld the commonwealth’s licensing requirement for gun buyers, mainly because it goes beyond federal law by “requiring background checks for all aspiring gun owners,” and not just those who purchase their firearms from federally licensed dealers. She also upheld the commonwealth’s ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, saying it probably would not have much impact on self-defense and might reduce deaths in mass shootings.”

  3. Where I live, open carry is totally legal. However if a concerned citizen calls 911 about someone with a gun, the cops will respond. You will be questioned, they will run you for warrants, they will search you, and who knows what will happen next. I guess it depends on how much deference you show to your betters. Because at that point the could let you go, steal your gun, or arrest you on false charges. Since nothing will happen to them, it’s a roll of the dice.

    1. Same here. And in the People’s Republics of Boulder and Denver, it’s pretty much a guarantee that some pants shitter will call the cops if they see you open carrying. Of course, you have a better chance of getting away with it the further from those two Communist proto-states you are

      1. Denver at least has a local ordinance prohibiting OC that somehow managed to survive a challenge despite the State government claiming exclusive power over regulating the carrying of firearms.

        1. Denver at least has a local ordinance prohibiting OC

          Huh. *Johnny Carson impersonation* I did not know that. That is some weird, wild stuff.

          1. So what happens if 5% or 10% of the general public (gun rights supporters) all start “openly carrying” realistic-looking TOY guns? As a protest, and as a method of “immunizing” cops against hysteria every time that they see a gun? I am thinking of putting up a web page and publicizing this idea. Are toy guns against the law anywhere? WHERE do I buy cheap-cheap semi-realistic-looking pistols, so cheap that no one would need to care if Nervous-Nellie cops stole one now and then? ? Comments PLEASE!!!

            1. Also, what happens if I can find $0.25-each dirt-cheap Styrofoam “pistols”, buy a few hundred of them, and pass them out to protesters at a BLM protest? If the only other perceived choice for enabling BLM protestors to FINALLY have their concerns heard, is for them to riot and burn down stores, then waving fake pistols would be a good thing. Smaller step first. Right? Even at the (hopefully small) risk that hot-head cops would start a massacre?

              1. Hopefully small? Are you crazy? That’s a recipe for a huge massacre.

              2. Carrying them is one thing, but waving them around is quite another.

            2. You’re basically asking people to fuck with cops in a way that will make them interact with the people, after they’ve been agitated. It seems likely this will result in a non-zero number of fatalities.

              1. OK then, fresh off the hot presses of my (over?) fartile mind? To take a baby step towards the baby step, when you (and/or your crowd of homies) are all about the business of aggravating (or “immunizing”) the cops, towards the sight of could-be-weapons (in the hands of hoi polloi, oh no!), then? Dangle the styrofoam pistols from fishing poles! Cops confiscate your best rod and reel, OK then? A long dirt-cheap stick (tree branch) and some string? Go fishing for fishy cops! Make it obvious that your hand is NOT on the weapon (baby step towards the baby step). A cop who will “take this bait” and start shooting, is a fishy cop indeed! A person shot while TRULY serving the public in the manner (flushing out the fishy cops) would be a true Hero in my book?

            3. Look up “Every 2nd Matters” if you want to accomplish that without getting killed.

            4. Do you want to to get in an active shooter situation where you are targeted first specifically because you have a weapon that turns out to be fake?

              Or a situation where you need a real weapon only to find yourself with a protest weapon?

              More people need to open carry real weapons so the public can see that gun owners are rational, responsible people whom require no fear.

            5. Are toy guns against the law anywhere?

              Yes. Several of the more anti-gun cities ban “replica weapons” that can be mistaken for the real thing. Not sure about state laws, but I’d check right carefully in the handful of discretionary states.

            6. From Section 272 of the Code of Federal Regulations:

              ?272.2 Prohibitions.

              No person shall manufacture, enter into commerce, ship, transport, or receive any toy, look-alike, or imitation firearm (“device”) covered by this part as set forth in ?272.1 unless such device contains, or has affixed to it, one of the markings set forth in ?272.3, or unless this prohibition has been waived by ?272.4.

              And what does 272.1 set forth as being covered? It begins:

              ?272.1 Applicability.

              This part applies to toy, look-alike, and imitation firearms (“devices”) having the appearance, shape, and/or configuration of a firearm and produced or manufactured and entered into commerce on or after May 5, 1989, including devices modelled on real firearms manufactured, designed, and produced since 1898.

              The markings required are a “blaze orange” plug in, or stripe around, the end of the barrel (color precisely defined in other regulations), or that the entire gun be made of translucent or brightly colored material. Of course, police rightly point out that they cannot rely on these color markings to distinguish real from fake guns, since a real gun could be painted to make it look like a toy, but what the heck.

              1. Thanks for the research, Kind Sir!

                I am saving this material for eventually posting on a web page…

                MeThinks our OverLords are over-reaching way badly here, it is high time for large crowds of people to swamp these bastards by all carrying, en mass, hundreds or thousands of cheap plastic, cardboard, or Styrofoam “pistols”… Mass civil disobedience. Let them confiscate all day long. And are they going to put us ALL in jail?

                “Receiving” such a toy is a crime also? Let’s put one on the porch of every big-wig politician, and then call in and snitch on these bastards!

                1. For any lawyer-like geeks out there, here is The Sacred Law as laid down by our OverLords…

                  http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/fake_gun.reg.txt

                  Read and heed! Draw a handgun on paper, cut it out, and GO TO JAIL!!!

                2. Hi Reason Mag,

                  Are we gonna get busted for revolting, or being revolting? Mutiny, heresy, high treason, or some such, for talking civil disobedience here? I am going to submit this and then label (flag) it “spam” so that you can see the above, and remove it if you think we will be “dragged into the night and fog” for our advocating disobedience to our Lords and Masters, concerning the above…

                  Thanks! -SQRLSY One

        2. the ONLY reason these unconstitutional restrictions are “surviving a challenge” is because the courts (judges) and SCOTUS are NOT DOING THEIR JOBS,not obeying the Constitution. One circuit’s judges will uphold a plainly unconstitutional gun law,another circuit overrules the same,then SCOTUS -fails to do their job-,and declines to hear the appeal.
          The Right to keep and bear arms is not a privilege allowed by government,it’s a right that “shall not be infringed”,and every one of these laws clearly infringed on the RIGHT.

          The 2nd Amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not say, “the right to keep and bear arms shall be dependent on gun ownership’s impact on crime.”

          1. What I forgot to include is that SCOTUS is deliberately allowing these unconstitutional gun laws to stand,because they’re unwilling to “upset the apple cart”,or go against “precedent”.
            IOW,they’re chicken.
            Besides violating their Oath of Office and DUTY to the American People.

      2. I lived in Boulder for a while. The cops there taught me to never trust the police.

        1. I’ve found that cops in college towns are the worst. My theory is that they have a massive inferiority complex from dealing with all the college students while they, often times, never got to go to college (maybe a 2 year community college for an associates in criminal justice or something like that, I don’t know).

          Of course the smug, smarmy, entitled attitude displayed by some college students doesn’t help. If you find yourself surrounded by assholes who think they’re better than you all the time AND you have a position that awards you the power to legally use force against them with zero accountability, AND you have sociopathic tendencies, it’s not a surprise that cops in college towns end up abusing their authoritah.

      3. In Austin, you will likely get calls from hysterical citizens, but the police will politely point out that they are in Texas, and that open carry of long guns is legal.

        Walked thru downtown Austin on a gun walk a while back carrying a camo Benelli shotgun, and got the gamut of reactions.

      4. Too bad you folks don’t have/enforce state laws that allow citizens to sue citizens, who call police, for making false police statements or misusing 911 service.

        Sue these liberal pieces of shit in court for trying to get open carriers harassed or killed and it will stop.

        1. Which is about as effective as dipping buckets of water from the deep end of the pool and dumping them in the shallow end to drain the pool. Complete waste of time. There are far more liberal assholes than time to torment them in your peaceful idea.

    2. Since nothing will happen to them, it’s a roll of the dice.

      Well, nothing from the “justice” system, true.

      Perhaps if it were an actual justice system instead of a governmental empowerment system…

    3. I have not yet seen someone open carry in Texas.

  4. Great news.

    Fucking 9th Circuit, though…

    Since Heller no appeals court has upheld a complete ban on carrying guns in public, but several have upheld laws that give local authorities wide discretion to decide who may do so.

    I don’t get this. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional. (And yes, I’m fluent in FYTW)

  5. GET THIS WOMAN ON THE SUPREME COURT STAT!

    1. Seconded!

  6. The other day I was talking to an anti gun prog friend and he mentions he’s going hunting and is gonna use an ar 15. The end result of the conversation is that it’s ok for him to have a gun but it’s not ok for just anybody because people are irresponsible.

    1. Proggies are basically elitist. On e,you understand that, most of what they do follows.

      1. This x 1000.

        Who here has ever met a self-described socialist who wasn’t full of bitter hatred towards other human beings? One second, they’ll be saying that “The People” should be given more control over the economic dealings of others, but the next, they’ll be ranting about how “The People” are too stupid to own a gun and that they should be outlawed.

    2. Gotta respect the simplicity of the double standard. I’ve never met a person who doesn’t have one. Now, it’s a matter curing the addiction of using Force against peaceful and productive people. It’s the combining of the two that’s the evil.

    3. Tell your prog friend that he’s a moron for using an AR-15 for deer hunting.

      1. Why? It’s a rifle that fires bullets. It’ll kill shit.

        Might be a bit harder to kill a deer than some other models of long guns, but not getting the “moron” comment.

      2. OP didn’t say deer hunting. My redneck friends love AR-15s for coyote hunting.

        1. AR-10 for deer, Pigs, AR-15 for everything else smaller

          1. AR-15 for everything else smaller.

            Define “smaller.” .223 is way overpowered for cottontails and squirrels. .22LR does just fine.

      3. Bullet placement is paramount. Bullet construction and mass less important but still significant.

        The 223 Rem (5.56) can easily kill the largest of deer if properly wielded.

        1. And those 29 follow up shots don’t hurt your chances of success either.

        2. IMO it all comes down to ethical hunting. An AR-15 with the right round at the right ranges will kill deer with proper shot placement.

          With that being said most people should probably use a bigger bullet to increase their chance for a successful hunt and not have the animal get away and die after fact.

          Hell, most days on the range I’m stunned on how people will slow fire an AR at 25 yards and have it look like bird shot.

          1. 300 blk

      4. No shit. He/she is full of it. Maybe AR10 modded out. Most people prefer the traditional long gun approach to sports hunting though the 10’s are gaining popularity in hunting rounds.

      5. AR15s don’t just come in 223/556. I have one in 6.5 Grendel which is perfect for deer. There are other calibers as well. Another AR15 cartridge, the 458 SOCOM replicates the ballistics of a 45-70 and could be used on larger game such as moose and elk.

    4. The Dunning Kruger effect is a harsh mistress.

  7. “Manglona concludes that “the Second Amendment, based on its plain language, the history described in Heller I, and common sense, must protect a right to armed self-defense in public.”

    I presume our First Amendment rights are valid outside the home, too, amirite?

    1. C’mon, Ken, it’s not like the printing press helped start a violent revolution or anything…

      …wait. BAN ASSAULT SPEECH!

  8. And Manglona is an Obama appointee: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramona_Villagomez_Manglona

    1. I bet he’s regretting that now.

    2. Yeah, well, stopped clock, blind squirrel, etc. I still think I’m in love with her.

  9. So, is the second amendment the only one where states can apparently override the plain meaning of the Federal Constitution? Why aren’t states also allowed to decide how much of your first amendment rights, or fifth amendment rights, that you’re able to use? I’ve always found that odd.

    1. You haven’t been paying attention to what states have been doing to the first and fifth.

    2. Because the bill of rights originally applied only to the Feds. The states had their own constitutions and Pennsylvania wasn’t exactly looking to give up any more sovereignty than absolutely necessary.

      Restrictions on state gun laws actually fall under the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th.

  10. “it is unconstitutional regardless of the level of scrutiny applied, and the Court must strike it down.”

    That’s the problem; SCOTUS never specified the level of scrutiny that courts should subject to firearms legislation.

    Since its a fundamental right, strict scrutiny should apply. Say bye-bye to most firearms legislation!

    1. Scrutiny levels are themselves bullshit dreamed up otu of thin air so the court could approve some things while denigrating others. I can’t imagine the bafflement it would cause the founding fathers.

      1. Courts would say that levels of scrutiny are inherent to the concept of “ordered liberty.”

        1. Hmmm … looking up “levels of scrutiny” and “ordered liberty” in my copies of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

          Not finding those combinations of words.

          1. It’s in an addendum in page 27 of the Social Contract. What, can’t you read?

  11. Ramona Manglona for SCOTUS.

    1. By contrast, she upheld the commonwealth’s licensing requirement for gun buyers, mainly because it goes beyond federal law by “requiring background checks for all aspiring gun owners,” and not just those who purchase their firearms from federally licensed dealers. She also upheld the commonwealth’s ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, saying it probably would not have much impact on self-defense and might reduce deaths in mass shootings.

      Well, nobody’s perfect. Still better on 2A than anyone Queen Cankles will nominate.

    2. I don’t know that I would take this ruling as an indication of supporting RKBA as it is she is somewhat obligated to adhere to higher court guidelines.

      She just seems less willing than members of other lower courts to twist the plain meaning of words.

      1. She just seems less willing than members of other lower courts to twist the plain meaning of words.

        That might be the best we can hope for.

  12. she scrutinizes the law’s logic instead of deferring to the supposed expertise and wisdom of legislators.

    I feel a great disturbance in the Force, as if a generation of Ivy League law professors had cried out in fear and anguish.

    1. She didn’t show proper deference? I sense that her career will end soon.

  13. “That’s because the “traditional limitations” she mentions include bans on concealed weapons.” where in the constitution does it say there are limitations on conceal carry? To Bear is to Carry and carry is carry no matter how its carried. Traditional does not mean constitutional.

  14. “justifiable need”
    “good and substantial reason.”
    “good reason to fear injury,”

    So now we need to justify our inalienable rights?

    The end is nigh! Fuck them all!

    1. My “good reason” is:

      I want to.

  15. One day we will use our firearms to not only get all infringements to the 2nd amendment revoked but even all those to the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th etc. Hopefully without having to split America into several countries.

    1. A Couple of countries would be fine and then maybe we will leave the rest of the world alone

      1. The problem with the U.S. is that there’s no shared culture. There’s several different main cultures, largely based on where you live geographically.

        Truth be told, it probably actually would make most sense for the U.S. to split into several countries.

        Obviously, Kalifornia and The Great Eastern Socialistic Republic could voluntarily give up all their guns if they so chose, but something tells me New Dixieland and the Middle Plains wouldn’t be too keen on disarming their citizens.

        I’m cool with this arrangement. Each culture gets what it wants.

        1. Look up the Red v Blue county map. Splitting at the state level isn’t that effective.

          http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2012/

  16. the Second Amendment of the Constitution is NOT ABOUT hunting or sporting.
    semi-auto,magazine-fed rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47 are today’s modern MILITIA weapons,and thus should be the most protected of firearms under the Second Amendment.

    Militiamen were expected to appear for muster bearing arms and ammo similar to and compatible with what the Regular military had in use AT THAT TIME.
    Since we “compromised” and restricted ownership of full-auto,true assault rifles,that leaves the semi-auto versions for civilian militia use.

    In US v Miller,SCOTUS asked if a short-barreled shotgun was a weapon that a militia would commonly use,implying that arms protected by the 2nd Amendment were arms a militia would use. AR-15’s,M-16’s and AK-47s would be ordinary militia arms,and “hi-capacity magazines” also would be protected.

    it’s VERY clear the Founders INTENDED that civilians have “weapons of war”,militia arms suitable for militia purposes,that include combat.

    1. I appreciate a good in-depth comment but the 2nd Amendment is clear:
      A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

      Shall not be infringed. Not some things are okay and others not.

      None- zip- zero infringements.

  17. I’m all for applying the original intent and understanding of the Second Amendment as written by the Framers. We all have the right to bear singles-shot, muzzle-loading, flintlock muskets, rifles and pistols. And swords. The Framers did not intend to protect any other type of weapon, because no other type of weapon existed at the time. QED.

    1. The framers intended the second amendment to apply to all military grade weapons. That is what is required for a militia unit, and that is what they had in mind. A kentucky rifle was more advanced than brown bess. Remember the sixties poster “suppose they gave a war and nobody came?” That is the world the framers had in mind. The Federal government would have a small military to respond to immediate threats, but would have to convince the citizens to respond to a militia call in order to really go to war. And those citizens who chose to respond would show up with their own “arms”, ready to go to war. So yes, at that time, muskets and pistols, but the framers knew things would change, and intended for the constitution to survive progress. So now, large caliber firearms, large capacity magazines, and all that jazz. If I have to put up with the madness allowed under the first amendment, you should have to put up with mine under the second.

    2. So you’re OK with anybody having grenades, and cannon? Because the Framers sure were.

    3. Dear Egypt Steve,

      We are sorry, but your free speech by electronic transmission privileges have been revoked. From now on your comments will only be accepted if written on vellum and dispatched by horseback courier directly to the Internet main office.

      Make sure your personal seal is embossed in bright red wax on the document, and that your penmanship is immaculate. That way we can more easily identify your postings. Your comment will be appear in 3-6 months, at our discretion.

      Have a nice day,
      The Internet

      1. Good one, Internet! Another under-appreciated aspect of the second amendment is that it guarantees the states SDI capabilities all the way to counterforce neutron bombs to cook the pits of any incoming fission weapons, ABM and SALT (or commie dictatorships) to the contrary notwithstanding. Article II of the main body of the Constitution grants the President the power to make treaties (Section 2, clause 2), and it is also true that these treaties “shall be the supreme Law of the Land” (Article VI, paragraph 2), it is nowhere stated that this treaty-making power shall override the Bill of Rights or the main body of the Constitution. In fact, Article VI, paragraph 2, specifies only that the treaty-making power takes precedence over “anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” Furthermore, the very last clause of Section 10 in Article I allows the States to defend themselves if “actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

    4. Of all the arguments put forward in these internet debates, this has to be one of the most preposterous of all. The Bill of Rights is about principles, not specifics. The principle is that the citizens have the right, the natural and inalienable right to be armed.

      The founders were actually pretty intelligent men. Believe it or not, they understood that technology would improve, that more sophisticated and modern weapons would be developed, just as the printing press had replaced hand written documents in the not-too-distant past, making events the Enlightenment, the Reformation, Counter-Reformation, the Age of Science, the Industrial Revolution and the Great Awakening possible. They were bright enough to realize that technology would change and effect the 1st Amenment as well as many the others. That is why they set forth broad, general principles.

      Furtermore, a number of the Founders were forward thinking, “early adopters” of technology. Additionally, the idea of multi-shot magazine fed weapons was already beging explored at the time of the founding and Lewis & Clark were equipped with the assault rifle of their day, a .46 caliber Girardoni “Windb?chse,” invented about 1779, in use by the followinbg year, which had a twenty to thirty round capacity, making it illegal even today in many of our uninlightened states and it was deadly at more than a hundred yards.

      1. At that time of the founding the citizens were armed with weaponry that was commensurate with that of the armed forces of the day, as many of us are today. The British military was armed with single shot muskets and pistols, so was the Militia, as were the citizens. The citizens were not limited to matchlocks, where the forces of the state were using flintlocks. In fact, in many cases, the private citizen were actually armed with higher quality and more accurate firearms than the British military or the American Militia were. The “Kentucky” long rifle used a rifle barrel rather than a smooth bore barrel like the military, thus it was far superior at longer ranges and excellent for sharp shooting, especially when the target was a British soldier in a bright scarlet coat.

        I have owned an examble of virtually every United States military long arm, from the Charleyville musket the French sent us during the Revolution, to the M1 Garand and I can assure you that for much of our history, civilians were often better armed than their military. While lever action repeating rifles were experimented with during the Civil War (the Volcanic and the Henry, forerunners to the Winchester), they were too expensive and so while thousands of private citizens relied on magazine fed rifles in the West, the United States cavalry was stuck with single shot rifles until shortly before the Spanish-American War. QUD right back at you, your Pomposity.

    5. Good point. Also, the First Amendment does not apply to the Internet because it didn’t exist yet in the 1700s.

    6. QED

      Not really, no.

    7. The militias casted their own mortars. You okay with private citizens having mortars? I’m willing to have a single loader black powder rifle if I can shell your house with indirect fire.

    8. Texas bans swords!

  18. The next thing we know, homeland security will have to get a warrant based on probable cause to search travelers at a US airport. How about a $1,000.00 tax on each post to the internet? You know, equal protection for the first amendment as well as the second. Might wind up with a balanced budget. . . . . .

  19. “the voice of the majority can often overpower the equally important rights of the minority.”

    No, fuck you, wrong! The rights of any minority are infinitely more important than the voice of any majority.

    1. Read what she wrote. She’s on your side, saying that it’s a bad thing.

    2. tru dat!

  20. One imagines that some federal judges even recognize that 2+2=4. It is sad that this realization is less than universal.

  21. See? See? There really are libertarian women in this world! And the platform committee would do well to take judicial notice of the fact.

  22. my friend’s mom makes $67 an hour on the internet . She has been fired for five months but last month her pay check was $20360 just working on the internet for a few hours. view….
    >>>>>>>>> http://www.Reportmax20.com

  23. my friend’s mom makes $67 an hour on the internet . She has been fired for five months but last month her pay check was $20360 just working on the internet for a few hours. view….
    >>>>>>>>> http://www.Reportmax20.com

  24. Bryce . even though Samuel `s story is unbelievable… on tuesday I bought a great Peugeot 205 GTi after making $4790 this – four weeks past an would you believe $10k last month . it’s definitly the most-comfortable work Ive ever done . I actually started 4 months ago and right away startad earning more than $85 p/h . find more info

    ……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  25. Bryce . even though Samuel `s story is unbelievable… on tuesday I bought a great Peugeot 205 GTi after making $4790 this – four weeks past an would you believe $10k last month . it’s definitly the most-comfortable work Ive ever done . I actually started 4 months ago and right away startad earning more than $85 p/h . find more info

    ……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  26. just as Shirley implied I am surprised that a single mom can make $4290 in a few weeks on the computer
    see more at———–>>> http://tinyurl.com/Usatoday01

  27. my friend’s mom makes $67 an hour on the internet . She has been fired for five months but last month her pay check was $20360 just working on the internet for a few hours. view….
    >>>>>>>>> http://www.Reportmax20.com

  28. my friend’s mom makes $67 an hour on the internet . She has been fired for five months but last month her pay check was $20360 just working on the internet for a few hours. view….
    >>>>>>>>> http://www.Reportmax20.com

  29. before I looked at the check which had said $6190 , I be certain …that…my sister was like trully bringing home money part time at their computer. . there uncle has been doing this for only about nine months and resently took care of the debts on their home and purchased a top of the range Lotus Elan . you could try here
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  30. Bryce . even though Samuel `s story is unbelievable… on tuesday I bought a great Peugeot 205 GTi after making $4790 this – four weeks past an would you believe $10k last month . it’s definitly the most-comfortable work Ive ever done . I actually started 4 months ago and right away startad earning more than $85 p/h . find more info

    ……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  31. y Aunty Ava just got a stunning yellow GMC Acadia SUV only from working parttime off a pc.
    see more at———–>>> http://tinyurl.com/Usatoday01

  32. Infringement by any other name is….

  33. There may be further development in the Ninth Circuit’s Fyock litigation, so what appears here well may be outdated.

    The Ninth Circuit DID NOT uphold the ten-round magazine limit in Fyock; it simply ruled that Fyock had not sustained his burden of proof that he was likely to prevail in the long run in the litigation, and it added in a footnote that he also probably could not establish irreparable injury (essential to the granting of a preliminary injunction).

    So, Fyock is NOT a precedent for the Marianas case.

    HOWEVER, consider also the following: In his entire CAREER with the FBI, Charles Bates (the man famous for heading the Patty Hearst investigation) fired ONE round in anger from his service revolver (he killed a kidnapper about to kill the victim).

    In other words, if you need more than ten rounds to shoot the bad guy, you probably ARE NOT engaging in “self-defense.”

    This is important for evaluating not just the Fyock opinion but also more conclusive opinions like Hickenlooper (Denver, Colorado). BEFORE ANYONE CAN GET A CASE BEFORE A FEDERAL COURT, HE MUST HAVE “STANDING” TO COMPLAIN; to get that, he needs to place a specific, individual right before the court for it to evaluate. The right pleaded by Fyock was NOT a general right to arms but the right to self-defense originally declared in Heller. So, already, Fyock has conceded Sunnyvale’s claim that it was NOT burdening “self-defense” by enacting the ten-round ban.

    1. The key to winning in Fyock-type cases is to put a DIFFERENT RIGHT before the courts and open a distinguishable area of law. The Second Amendment, whatever else it allows, is directed at the MILITIA, so the claim that a “machine gun” is not a weapon normally possessed by “law-abiding citizens” simply would have no foundation within a militia setting.

      Furthermore, there are two militias in the United States — state and federal — and if you’re less than 45 years old, like it or not, you’re in them both.

      It is this division of military power in the U.S. that allows common citizens, under appropriate regulation, to own both “machine guns” AND large-capacity magazines, but unless rights accruing hereunder are PLEADED, they are not before the court and will not be considered — PERIOD.

      Since Fyock didn’t do this, my guess is that the Ninth Circuit got it right THIS TIME by denying him the preliminary injunction.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.