TexasCHLforum.com

DParker wrote:Well. I guess that's what I get for giving Ginsburg the benefit of the doubt. Nonetheless....

Hooray for our side.

(Of late, I must acknowledge, my Chief has expressed disagreement on the relevance of foreign law, particularly on questions implicating the allocation of regulatory and decisionmaking authority between state and federal governments in the United States. I will later refer to 21st-century dissenting opinions he joined criticizing comparative sideglances by the Court's majority.)

Returning to my own perspective, while U. S. jurisprudence has evolved over the course of two centuries of constitutional adjudication, we are not so wise that we have nothing to learn from other democratic legal systems newer to judicial review for constitutionality. The point was well made by Second Circuit Judge, former Dean of Yale Law School, Guido Calabresi: "Wise parents," Judge Calabresi said in a 1995 concurring opinion, "do not hesitate to learn from their children."

DC v Heller, majority opinion wrote:...Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, con-
cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire-
arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time� finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56....

"This will inspire years and years of litigation and undercut the network of gun laws," he said.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

DParker wrote:Well. I guess that's what I get for giving Ginsburg the benefit of the doubt. Nonetheless....

Hooray for our side.

You actually thought that Ginsburg would come down on the side of the individual right?

She believes that foreign law regarding the RKBA should be dependent upon what other nations say about it.

“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.�

drw wrote:From the opinion:

“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.�

It's official: the state of Texas is infringing on our rights by requiring us to be licensed in order to carry.

Pinkycatcher wrote:

drw wrote:From the opinion:

“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.�

It's official: the state of Texas is infringing on our rights by requiring us to be licensed in order to carry.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, con-
cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues.

I can see the argument that open carry cannot be regulated though

HerbM wrote:Strongly implying that automatic and short barrel shotgun bans/licensing will remain intact -- although through a form of mental gymnastics that borders on intellectual dishonesty: protects only weapons in common use (ignoring that such arms were be in use if they were not regulate to the point of a near ban.)

Less strongly implying that concealed carry prohibitions will be found acceptable

Stating clearly that allowing rifles will not excuse banning (common) handguns or presumably vice versa.