In MD
High court holds second amendment does not protect carrying a gun outside the home. Eugene Volokh says: I don’t think this analysis is right.
More here.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
January 6th, 2011 at 10:32 am
Well, that was Scalia. I believe his terminology, from oral arguments, was “not in the marketplace”, from some 17th century English law.
I’m never too shy to state the obvious: But half our lives are lived “in the marketplace”, Mr. Justice Scalia.
January 6th, 2011 at 11:40 am
Markie Marxist sez: “Of course there’s no Second Amendment right to carry a gun outside the home! As everyone knows, it’s the right to keep arms, not the right to bear arms, so you can keep it at home, but you can’t carry it with you.”
January 6th, 2011 at 11:46 am
I recall the courts ruling that homeless people had the right to vote, and that they could call virtually anywhere (park bench, stolen shopping cart) a residence.
I wonder if Marylanders could jury-rig that juriprudence into some kind of permission to carry.
“Officer, I was going from my legal residence to my car, which is also a legal residence.”
January 6th, 2011 at 11:59 am
“How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!” –Samuel Adams, American Revolution Leader
January 6th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
I lived in Maryland, in Baltimore (Bawlmer) and its suburbs, for a decade. The whole state is loony. This is just one more ruling in a long history of judicial, legislative, and regulatory subjugation of the rights of individuals in Maryland. All forces of government in MD are dedicated to suppression of the rights, initiative, independence, and enjoyment of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of the individual.
I thank God daily that I live there no longer.
January 6th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
On the case at hand, the court was indeed correct that Heller and McDonald only answered the question of gun possession in the home being covered under the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. The cases were formulated to narrowly and specifically achieve that goal.
To say that anything else is therefore verboten is like saying that one can only travel the exact posted speed limit whilst driving, and deviation of 0.01 mph lower than that speed is an automatic infraction. That is, it completely ignores all judicial and legislative and common law history, not to mention human rights.
January 6th, 2011 at 2:05 pm
Well, that’s obvious. It’s just like how freedom of the press allows you to write things in your own home, but it doesn’t give you the right to actually show your writings to anyone.
Right?
January 6th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
When in Montana grizzly bear country*, I would feel bare if not allowed to bear my Ruger .44 mag Redhawk. *Well, also when in (most) other places.