District of Columbia v. Heller - Page 5

Steeler · 03-19-2008, 02:53 PM

Does an individual right to bear arms guarantee a right to carry a knife or gun onto a plane? What about a katana?

Elwenil · 03-19-2008, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

Does an individual right to bear arms guarantee a right to carry a knife or gun onto a plane? What about a katana?

That is sort of irrelevant since even though an individual can legally carry a concealed handgun, they are still prohibited from carrying them in certain places based on State law. For example, in Virginia, you can carry a gun just about anywhere except civic buildings(schools, post offices, court houses, etc), any place that sells alcohol, firearms or ammunition, or anywhere that prohibits carrying a weapon. So basically, a business owner, home owner, or even an airline could simply post a sign stating to not have weapons on their property. I don't think that the right to bear arms should apply to everywhere, personally, although I do feel that high risk areas should be considered for firearm access, like VA Tech and other colleges and similar places that become a target for idiots with no discipline.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 03-19-2008, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

Does an individual right to bear arms guarantee a right to carry a knife or gun onto a plane? What about a katana?

It is funny that things less than firearms are rarely brought up with regard to the 2nd Amendment. I think that is significant.

But I would say no. Those rules do not prevent you from defending the state. You can still own those things and even have them transported to your destination, you just can't posses them while in flight.

There is also the ban of firearms in national parks. Very few think that is a violation. Nor do many believe banning of public use of firearms is a problem. At least I hope not. Some drunk yahoo firing a rifle in the air on New Years in a city should be illegal and punished.

But that brings up a good question. If it is a States right can the state prevent people from other States from bearing arms while in their jurisdiction?

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 03-19-2008, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elwenil

That is sort of irrelevant since even though an individual can legally carry a concealed handgun, they are still prohibited from carrying them in certain places based on State law. For example, in Virginia, you can carry a gun just about anywhere except civic buildings(schools, post offices, court houses, etc), any place that sells alcohol, firearms or ammunition, or anywhere that prohibits carrying a weapon. So basically, a business owner, home owner, or even an airline could simply post a sign stating to not have weapons on their property. I don't think that the right to bear arms should apply to everywhere, personally, although I do feel that high risk areas should be considered for firearm access, like VA Tech and other colleges and similar places that become a target for idiots with no discipline.

It isn't irrelevant. You just accepted the right of the State to limit what you can do with a firearm. If the state can limit you thus, do they have any limits? Can they allow the owning of firearms yet say you must keep them locked until the state needs to assemble the militia? Can they say you can own them but must keep them in the local armory?

What is reasonable?

Elwenil · 03-19-2008, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

But that brings up a good question. If it is a States right can the state prevent people from other States from bearing arms while in their jurisdiction?

Yes, when in Rome... As long as a State can enforce the law, it is in effect while you are in that State. A good example is the people coming from WV into VA with their radar detectors. If caught, they will be ticketed because they are illegal here in VA.

Elwenil · 03-19-2008, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

It isn't irrelevant. You just accepted the right of the State to limit what you can do with a firearm. If the state can limit you thus, do they have any limits? Can they allow the owning of firearms yet say you must keep them locked until the state needs to assemble the militia? Can they say you can own them but must keep them in the local armory?

What is reasonable?

I am not against limits, as there are obviously people who should not own a firearm and there are individual places where they should not be needed. I do not think the Right to Bear Arms gives us the right to carry them 100% of the time. I do believe it gives us the right to own and maintain them for private use and in the event of an emergency. I'm a supporter of gun ownership, not a lunatic who thinks we should be in the Wild West, lol.

**Strag** · 03-19-2008, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

But that brings up a good question. If it is a States right can the state prevent people from other States from bearing arms while in their jurisdiction?

I've not read through the entire thing, but the state laws I have read seem to indicate transportation of (fire)arms by nonresidents is acceptable. Now, is that considered "bearing" those arms?

EDIT: To answer my own question, transportation does not seem to be the same thing as bearing. From the same website:

CARRYING ON OR ABOUT THE PERSON

It must be stressed that as soon as any firearm (handgun, rifle, or shotgun) is carried on or about the person, or placed where it is readily accessible in a vehicle, state and local firearms laws regarding carrying apply. If you seek to transport firearms in such a manner, it is advisable that you determine what the law is by contacting the Attorney General's office in each state through which you may travel or by reviewing a NRA/ILA State Firearms Law Digest or the Concealed Carry Reciprocity guide and also available by calling NRA/ILA at 800-392-8683. You should determine whether a permit is needed and how to obtain one if available. While many states require a permit for this type of carrying, most will not issue such permits to nonresidents, and others prohibit such carrying altogether.

If "carrying on or about the person" is indeed the same thing as bearing, then it would seem a state can currently prevent people from other States from bearing arms while in its jurisdiction. Passing through (lawful transportation) such a jurisdiction seems to be acceptable, although there may be exceptions. Anybody confused yet?

**TheFeniX** · 03-19-2008, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

Does an individual right to bear arms guarantee a right to carry a knife or gun onto a plane? What about a katana?

Airports and airplanes are private property. You're basically signing away your rights, whether explicitly or implied, when boarding an aircraft. The government isn't making you do it per se, the airlines are asking you to in order to use their service.

This holds true in other venues as well. Any private property owner can prohibit me from carrying anything into his domain. If I refuse, I'm trespassing.

I'm no law professor, but I would assume there would be a lot more hurdles for the federal government to go through if the airlines were owned and operated by the government considering you're basically forced to waive your 4th amendment rights (among others) when boarding an airplane.

ScratchMonkey · 03-20-2008, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

Does an individual right to bear arms guarantee a right to carry a knife or gun onto a plane? What about a katana?

The Bill of Rights is a set of constraints on government. It does not address private individuals or organizations.

For example, the 1st amendment does not guarantee you access to a press, certainly not one owned by someone else. It prevents the government from restricting your ability to use a press.

The courts have extended the constrained group to include people operating public venues, such as malls, forcing them to allow use of their premises by those wanting to push their politics. I think this was a bad precedent. The same logic is also used to ban smoking in restaurants.

**Switchcraft** · 03-20-2008, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

I'm no law professor, but I would assume there would be a lot more hurdles for the federal government to go through if the airlines were owned and operated by the government considering you're basically forced to waive your 4th amendment rights (among others) when boarding an airplane.

Not really. While the airplanes tend to be privately-owned, TSA is federal already. They're not there to enforce private policies. If the planes were owned and operated by the government, TSA would still be there.

The government can't just randomly search you on the street, but inside a government facility it's a different story...think courts, federal buildings, airports, the subway.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 03-20-2008, 10:08 AM

And to add to what Switchcraft said you cannot bring firearms into National Parks.

**TheFeniX** · 03-20-2008, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

Not really. While the airplanes tend to be privately-owned, TSA is federal already. They're not there to enforce private policies. If the planes were owned and operated by the government, TSA would still be there.

The government can't just randomly search you on the street, but inside a government facility it's a different story...think courts, federal buildings, airports, the subway.

It is much easier for a private owner to get you to waive your rights than it is for the government. And even then, they don't always have to go that far. There have been numerous instances of evidence being obtained (without police intervention) by private individuals being used in court even when it was obtained by violating a person's 4th amendment rights.

Between private individuals (or businesses), it's much easier to get around the Bill of Rights. I'm not saying airports wouldn't be exactly how they are now if owned by the government (the service really couldn't get any worse), but that federal, state, and local governments have more red tape to deny a person access to X. All I have to do as a private property owner is say "You can't bring X into my house/business."

**CingularDuality** · 06-24-2008, 08:07 AM

I heard the Governor of Montana on a radio show last week, and it seems that Montana has a keen interest in the outcome of this case.

Here's a letter to the Washington Times from Montana's Sec. of State:

Quote:

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide D.C. v. Heller, the first case in more than 60 years in which the court will confront the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although Heller is about the constitutionality of the D.C. handgun ban, the court’s decision will have an impact far beyond the District ("Promises breached,” Op-Ed, Thursday).

The court must decide in Heller whether the Second Amendment secures a right for individuals to keep and bear arms or merely grants states the power to arm their militias, the National Guard. This latter view is called the “collective rights” theory.

A collective rights decision by the court would violate the contract by which Montana entered into statehood, called the Compact With the United States and archived at Article I of the Montana Constitution. When Montana and the United States entered into this bilateral contract in 1889, the U.S. approved the right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing the right of “any person” to bear arms, clearly an individual right.

There was no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible to a collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contract understood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declared Montana constitutional right of “any person” to bear arms.

As a bedrock principle of law, a contract must be honored so as to give effect to the intent of the contracting parties. A collective rights decision by the court in Heller would invoke an era of unilaterally revisable contracts by violating the statehood contract between the United States and Montana, and many other states.

Numerous Montana lawmakers have concurred in a resolution raising this contract-violation issue. It’s posted at progunleaders.org. The United States would do well to keep its contractual promise to the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of the statehood contract.

BRAD JOHNSON

Montana secretary of state

Helena, Mont.

Here's a link to their Constitution.

Here's a website dedicated to this issue: http://www.progunleaders.org/

Very interesting.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 06-24-2008, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

I heard the Governor of Montana on a radio show last week, and it seems that Montana has a keen interest in the outcome of this case.

Here's a letter to the Washington Times from Montana's Sec. of State:

Here's a link to their Constitution.

Here's a website dedicated to this issue: http://www.progunleaders.org/

Very interesting.

Interesting yes. But what is Montana going to do, succeed from the union?

At any rate a court ruling for D.C. does nothing to Montana or their way of life, does it? It wouldn't force Montana to do anything as far as I can tell. It doesn't remove a right to have firearms. It would just give the state the freedom to add some restrictions.

It sounds like Montana is saying "Please don't give us the freedom to make a decision. We can't handle it."

Or maybe Montana is trying to protect the rights of all Americans? They can go fly a kite if that is the case.

So this is just a Governor and some other blowhards wanting to look tough.

**Switchcraft** · 06-24-2008, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

Interesting yes. But what is Montana going to do, succeed from the union?

At any rate a court ruling for D.C. does nothing to Montana or their way of life, does it? It wouldn't force Montana to do anything as far as I can tell. It doesn't remove a right to have firearms. It would just give the state the freedom to add some restrictions.

It sounds like Montana is saying "Please don't give us the freedom to make a decision. We can't handle it."

Or maybe Montana is trying to protect the rights of all Americans? They can go fly a kite if that is the case.

So this is just a Governor and some other blowhards wanting to look tough.

A ruling in favor of DC would allow the Federal government to place those same draconian restrictions in DC on the rest of the country...why would you argue that it's only going to expand the freedoms of the state governments if you know very well the federal government can, has, and does pass firearms laws? The state doesn't exist in a vacuum. Their citizens have constitutional rights too, and one of them was spelled out and guaranteed when they joined the Union, which was NOT that long ago. The oldest living person in the US was born less than 4 years after that.

As far as "they can go fly a kite," why the hostility? Do you keep some list of citizens allowed to argue for their Constitutional rights but these guys aren't on it?

03-19-2008, 02:53 PM	#61 (permalink)
Steeler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Taxachusetts Age: 30 Posts: 2,907	Re: District of Columbia v. Heller Does an individual right to bear arms guarantee a right to carry a knife or gun onto a plane? What about a katana? __________________

03-20-2008, 10:08 AM	#71 (permalink)
El_Gringo_Grande Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: OKIE HOMY Age: 39 Posts: 2,281	Re: District of Columbia v. Heller And to add to what Switchcraft said you cannot bring firearms into National Parks. __________________ Sen. John McCain (AZ) For President '08 --- I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host. - "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson - "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta - If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links