Again, it's the dogs that don't hunt bark which require some attention, and in this case it's an argument which the Supreme Court [in January 2013] decided not to hear, implicitly affirming that the Second Amendment allows for reasonable gun control measures.
The Courtroom of the Supreme Court
Excerpt from:
by Adam B, (Jan 07, 2013)
Adam B
Again, it's the dogs that don't hunt bark which require some attention, and in this case it's an argument which the Supreme Court today decided not to hear, implicitly affirming that the Second Amendment allows for reasonable gun control measures.
The great state of Georgia passed a law in 2010 which bars the carrying of weapons or long guns in eight designated places, including a government building, a bar, on the premises of a nuclear power facility, within 150 feet of any polling place, and places of worship, without the proprietor's permission. Basically, when you show up at one of these facilities, the law commands you to tell the security person that you're carrying a weapon, and stow and secure it however they order. Failure to comply is a misdemeanor offense.
Edward Stone and Jonathan Wilkins sued to have the law declared unconstitutional, alleging that they regularly attend religious services, possess a weapons carry license, and would like to carry a handgun while worshipping, arguing that the law violated both their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion and their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
In July 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit agreed with the district court below and dismissed the complaint, as summarized by these excerpts:
We searched the Amended Complaint to no avail in an attempt to find factual allegations that could possibly be construed as alleging that the Carry Law imposes a constitutionally impermissible burden on one of Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs. At various points, Plaintiffs allege that they would like to carry a handgun in a place of worship for the protection either of themselves, their family, their flock, or other members of the Tabernacle. Plaintiffs conclude by alleging that the Carry Law interferes with their free exercise of religion by prohibiting them from engaging in activities in a place of worship when those activities are generally permitted throughout the State. That Plaintiffs “would like” to carry a firearm in order to be able to act in “self-defense” is a personal preference, motivated by a secular purpose. As we note supra, there is no First Amendment protection for personal preferences; nor is there protection for secular beliefs.
|
Welcome to our second open thread. To add our diaries in your stream, go to our group blog
Firearms Law and Policy and click on the little heart. To join us send us a
Kosmail.
The Daily Kos Firearms Law and Policy group was founded last month by LilithGardener, OregonOak, Glen the Plumber, and Joy of Fishes. Some of us have been using firearms for many years while others have never owned or handled a gun. We published a Glossary of Resources to make it easier for everyone to find answers to their questions and support their opinions with primary sources of firearms law and policy research. If you find gun jargon confusing you are not alone. This Glossary of Gun Terminology from Handgun Law may help you find the right words.
Firearms Law and Policy Digest September 6, 2013 by
Joy of Fishes was published yesterday at 6PM CDT. To add our diaries in your stream, go to our group blog
Firearms Law and Policy and click on the little heart. To join us send us a
Kosmail.
We hope that diaries covering different aspects of firearms law will help us to understand which laws are in effect where we live, and how they came to be what they are. Diaries about hunting, shooting sports, and "gun culture" may help us to bridge the urban/rural divide that seems impassable at times. See BadKitties diary Nature vs. Nurture: Are Guns in the Blood? and share your thoughts on one mother's dilemma. Most firearms laws are passed and enforced at the state level. Currently, if responsible gun owners want to take their guns with them when they travel across state lines, it can be quite challenging to remain in compliance with the law. Our goal is to study and discuss gun laws and regulations, in this post-Heller environment. We want to understand what restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms are consistent with the current Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment.
~~~~~~
Please argue your case the way Wee Mamma illustrated in her excellent diary, Make Your Case , attempt to win over your opponent the way akadjian laid out here, and join us for collaborative discussions like this and this.
~~~~~~
A note from the founders about our profile statement:< We want to be informed citizens. Our goal is to reduce confusion and enable readers of Daily Kos to peruse and study primary documents for themselves. None of us are experts on constitutional law. Most of us are not even lawyers. Thank you poco, for asking us about our profile and prompting an excellent discussion. We will update our profile as soon as we reach a consensus on what we really meant to say.
• Dear LilithGardener, (10+ / 0-)
I really appreciate this group and its ethos and purposes.
But (and this may not be the ideal venue for discussing this) I am loathe to join, only because of this:
We will discuss firearms law and policy with an emphasis on the many historical ethics and ideals of Western Civilization, as opposed to what are currently known as "Libertarian" ideals.
And this is where I cavil. Like Gandhi, I think that Western Civilization "would be a good idea," but the term used non-ironically raises all my hackles. The ethics and ideals of Western civilization are as relevant and great as the ethics and ideals of Eastern civilization; making this demarcation seems to be just a hollow patting oneself on the back.
What about humanitarian ideals? Or universal/global ethics?
I understand that the phrase may have been chosen for certain specific political purposes, but the usage of this phrase has ramifications that go beyond this specific purpose. It (inadvertently, I am sure) makes all of us who do not belong to Western Civilization feel uncivilized and savage, which (I am sure) is not the intent of your group.
It's Gandhi, not Ghandi
by poco on Wed Sep 04, 2013 at 06:42:21 PM PDT
|
To add our diaries in your stream, go to our group blog
Firearms Law and Policy and click on the little heart. To join us send us a
Kosmail.