Maryland's Handgun licensing law struck down as unconstitutional

Rights do not originate with the state -- thus, the state has no standing to issue, much less a require, a license to exercise your rights.

 

Legitimate concerns securing a building where people are divested of their rights by due process of law has nothing to do with the conversation and you know it.
You're being deliberately obtuse.

Barring a citizen not seized under the 4th amendment from exercise of their right to keep and bear arms violates the 2nd amendment and 14th amendment if done by a state.

 

wrong-you jumped into this conversation and you want to change the issues I was discussing with Joe. I say states have a constitutionally sound power to restrict people carrying firearms in areas such as courthouses or jails. States can constitutionally ban juveniles, convicted felons, those under felony indictment, fugitives or those adjudicated mentally incompetent from possessing firearms. want to deny that-fine but you will never win that argument in a court.

 

No, I chimed in on a discussion forum in a public discussion. Its not a violation of forum rules, its not a crime or a tort. Hell, it ain't even rude.

Quoted above is what you said and what you responded to.
You decide a little bit after that to walk it back, but here you are saying what I have emphasized above.
Pick a side.

 

Under Bruen were there restrictions on carrying concealed at the time the second was enacted?

 

Per Bruen?
None that would apply. There were statues in Mass and New Hampshire allowing the arrest of rioters or those going about armed 'offensively' but that term was not defined in a way that would allow it to restrict concealed carry. It was meant to attach to people going out intentionally causing panic and is basically just a brandishing statute. It also applied to those bearing dangerous and unusual weapons, which a pistol certainly is not.

The New Jersey law you're going to try it on with also isn't on pointe and I'll head you off by quoting the decision:

The third statute invoked by respondents was enacted in East New Jersey in 1686. It prohibited the concealed carry of “pocket pistol” or other “unusual or unlawful weapons,” and it further prohibited “planter” from carrying all pistols unless in military service or, if “strangers,” when traveling through the Province. An Act Against Wearing Swords, &c., ch. 9, in Grants, Concessions, and Original Constitutions of the Province of New Jersey 290 (2d ed. 1881) (Grants and Concessions). These restrictions do not meaningfully support respondents. The law restricted only concealed carry, not all public carry, and its restrictions applied only to certain “unusual or unlawful weapons,” including “pocket pistol.” Ibid. It also did not apply to all pistols, let alone all firearms. “Pocket pistols” had barrel lengths of perhaps 3 or 4 inches, far smaller than the 6-inch to 14-inch barrels found on the other belt and hip pistols that were commonly used for lawful purposes in the 1600s." J. George, English Pistols and Revolvers 16 (1938 )
NYSRPA v Bruen, 597 U. S. 39 (2022)
Likewise it applied to those dangerous and unusual type weapons, which while they may have been in the day certainly are not now.
Which is part of the opinion, see discussion later but TLDR "A by-now-familiar thread runs through these three statutes: They prohibit bearing arms in a way that spreads “fear” or “terror” among the people." ID @ 41.
Further: That statute doesn't even survive East Jersey and West Jersey becoming New Jersey. Not anything to hang such a restriction on.

So while Bruen didn't have the legs to go that far because it wasn't part of the Question put to the Court, none that would pass the requirements.

You fight so hard to have your rights taken from you, but you protest you're for the rights you wish taken. Curious.

 

wrong-I just realize purists don't help in these areas. those who claim that the government cannot ban carrying in courthouses or cannot require shall issue concealed carry permits only hurt the pro gun movement

 

Wrong? Quote Bruen where there are concealed carry bans at the time of the founding. Go on then.

The bolded is not a claim I have made. Or that ANYONE BUT YOU has made. Its a strawman.
The underlined I did make, based on the historic record in Bruen.

 

Those who are not criminals I believe the state has no right to say where they can or can not carry.

 

OK so you believe that a state government cannot prevent someone with a clean record from carrying in a courthouse or a prison?

 

Nope, not as the constitution was designed.

 

well as the constitution was originally designed, the constitution didn't apply to the state governments and the bill of rights certainly did not-read CRUIKSHANK V USA

 

First of all that case had nothing to do with the second amendment. Second of all to claim the state has authority over something that is clearly written as shall not be infringed is asinine. I don’t need a judge or a scholar to be able to make up my own on the constitution that’s written in plane English. When you couple the tenth amendment with the 2nd it shows it was never a states right to restrict. Even a law graduate named Tench Coxe at the time of ratification believed the same as I. He was even allowed to right about it in the Pennsylvania gazette that was owned by Benjamin Franklin and was also used to sell the constitution to the people. The original intent gave zero room for states to regulate arms

 

so you think that the second amendment prevents state governments from banning the carrying of handguns in jails or courthouses

I disagree and you are wrong. The constitution had nothing to do with state powers that were not delegated to the federal government

States don't have rights, they have powers

states have powers to regulate arms before the US Constitution was penned
states had powers to regulate arms after the bill of rights was enacted
and states have SOME powers to regulate arms after incorporation including banning the carrying of guns in certain governmental areas

 

The tenth clearly states what is not delegated to the United States by the constitution nor is restricted by it to the states, is left to the states. Shall not be infringed is a clear and utter restriction all the way around. And a law grad at the time of ratification agrees with me.

 

And this attorney who has lectured all over the midwest on the second amendment calls bullshit on the claim. Shall not be infringed ONLY APPLIED TO THE NEW FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/

The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.

 

Well you were not around at the time of ratification. If you are an attorney and ignore tench Coxe as something to just write off you are wrong. Specially being his writings were used in court cases. So his significance is definitely worthy to note. Being he explained it completely differently than you I would argue that you are in the wrong when looking at it’s original intent.

 

You just don't get it-nothing Coxe said had anything to do with state powers. Nothing he wrote has ever been used to justify the second amendment -prior to incorporation-interfering with state powers.

 

That’s not true on both accounts. He also said that the federal not state governments had power over arms. How does that have nothing to do with the second?

 

I don't know what you think you are proving

that fact is, the bill of rights only limited the power of the federal government
all of the states that ratified the Constitution and the Bill of rights had various gun control laws


read this and tell me where Coxe's arguments were used to overcome state powers. Look at footnote 80 specifically and the main text it refers to


https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/...Tench Coxe, a member of,to keep and bear arms.

 

Those laws prior to the ratification of the constitution would have been null and void upon ratification making the constitution the supreme law of the land. And to claim it only limited the federal government would ignore the tenth amendment all together. That’s an asinine claim

 

wrong-the founders knew they only had the powers delegated to the new government by the several states. the federal government was not given that power-it was a government limited to its enumerated powers.

 

Then Explain the tenth.