Quote:
|
Originally Posted by chumdawg
Thanks for the context, and I appreciate your opinions on it, but I still maintain that one has nothing to do with the other. If the Bill of Rights doesn't spell it out, that certainly does NOT mean that we don't have the right to it. We have other means of establishing rights to things, besides those ten amendments.
I understand what constitutional law is. I also understand that it does not fully determine all law in all contexts. For example, if you own a concealed weapon permit you still are disallowed (by law) to bring that weapon into a place that serves alcohol, am I correct? Regardless if I have this point correct, I'm pretty certain that there are limits on where you can carry your weapon. You can't carry it in a courthouse, and so on...
So it seems perfectly legitimate to me, and certainly not the perspective of a "mad hatter," to maintain a point of view that says you are welcome to carry a hunting weapon while you are hunting but you are not welcome to carry that same said hunting weapon while you walk the streets of town.
After all, can you carry around a loaded hunting rifle while you walk the neighborhood mall? Answer me that.
The question that was before the Supreme Court was whether the second amendment guaranteed Americans the right to carry handguns in the municipality of Washington, DC. It didn't have anything to do with hunting. I'm all for interpreting and applying constitutional law, but I don't like the introduction of other issues (like whether you can hunt or not) that have nothing to do with the constitutional language at hand.
It's pretty clear that the Second Amendment had the issue of a militia in mind. They weren't talking about hunting...
|
1)can you carry a hunting rifle around in a mall? Yes, you can. The laws about carrying weapons are:
a)concealed weapons require concealed weapons licenses in all states I am aware of.
b)unconcealed weapons are actually completely legal. Remember when every redneck had a rifle and shotgun mounted in his truck window? That was and is still legal. Those are not concealed weapons. It is actually legal to put a high powered rifle on your shoulder and walk around a mall, just as it is legal to put a rifle or shotgun in your truck window. The reason that most people don't carry guns in their trucks anymore is because theft went way up. People were breaking the back windows and stealing the guns...
c)there are places where you cannot carry a concealed or unconcealed weapon. There are laws that disallow such for other reasons too. Examples are federal buildings. You cannot carry a weapon into a post office (unless you are mailing it and it is declared and packaged and unloaded and other laws regarding this exception are met). Companies/stores in most states have the right to put a sign on their front door that says, "Guns banned in this facility".
d)If you carry a deer hunting rifle slung over your shoulder as you stroll through the mall, then mall security and even the police may show up and politely ask you to leave and may escort you away. But, you have not actually committed a crime in most places.
2)"The question that was before the Supreme Court was whether the second amendment guaranteed Americans the right to carry handguns in the municipality of Washington, DC. It didn't have anything to do with hunting. I'm all for interpreting and applying constitutional law, but I don't like the introduction of other issues (like whether you can hunt or not) that have nothing to do with the constitutional language at hand."
The issue of adding other factors to the decision is a matter of the legal briefs that were filed for and against the matter. The other factors entered the discussion because the two sides of the case presented those other facts. Alito did not just throw that in there to make a point.
3)"It's pretty clear that the Second Amendment had the issue of a militia in mind. They weren't talking about hunting"
That is what this case was about. And, the decision is that the second amendment WAS NOT ABOUT just militias. It was about the personal individual right to bear arms.
And, again, the issue of hunting entered the debate through the legal briefs/arguements from the two sides and Alito also refers to Justice Stevens's arguements.