Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Md Gun law found unconstitutional [View all]iverglas
(38,549 posts)70. my reference was to the Maryland legislation:
a general prohibition with possible exceptions.
If the judge had meant that the second amendment prohibited controls on the carrying of weapons outside the home, one would have expected him to just say that. But what he said was:
The Maryland statutes failure lies in the overly broad means by which it seeks to advance this undoubtedly legitimate end.
He essentially contradicts himself:
If the Government wishes to burden a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it may do so provided that it can show a satisfactory justification and a sufficiently adapted method.
Check.
And then:
The showing, however, is always the Governments to make. A citizen may not be required to offer a good and substantial reason why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The rights existence is all the reason he needs.
Once the state has shown justification for the limitation, which he plainly acknowledged that it is open to it to do, then the individual does have to show why their interests override the public interests in issue.
If the existence of the right were all the reason needed, then why bother talking about justification for limiting the exercise of rights? There could never be any.
Unfortunately I have to beg off. I have a turkey to get into the oven, which is going to involve motivating another party, since it's not the easiest thing to do from a wheelchair. And after falling over and not being able to get up yesterday (the first time in almost a month, though), I'm not eager to do it again with a turkey ...
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
110 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Cite the historical records, writtings of the authors of the Constitution and Amendments...
PavePusher
Mar 2012
#38
re: "...when "the people" are bearing arms, they're maintaining a militia."
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Mar 2012
#58
Regardless of your blatant misinterpretation, MY state has no such clause to misinterpret.
AtheistCrusader
Mar 2012
#94
The second half was aimed, quite obviously, at individuals and corporations building
AtheistCrusader
Mar 2012
#96
I'm not sure if we're speaking the same language, or if you are being intentionally obtuse.
AtheistCrusader
Mar 2012
#107
That's because all it takes is one example to demonstrate the hole in your arguement.
Atypical Liberal
Mar 2012
#21
I'm not going to slog through this. I reject the entire premise of "collective rights".
Atypical Liberal
Mar 2012
#49
There is nothing that the people as a whole can do that a single person cannot do.
Atypical Liberal
Mar 2012
#54
You're almost there. What ACTIONS do individuals have the RIGHT to do.
Atypical Liberal
Mar 2012
#81
Nope, still no actions listed that the public can undertake that individuals cannot.
Atypical Liberal
Mar 2012
#88
I made the mistake of checking in latest threads instead of the forum - lesson learned. Sorry again
kelly1mm
Mar 2012
#9
"Rationing" can also be used to describe meting something out by perceived need.
TheWraith
Mar 2012
#13