Absolute bullcrap, and only YOUR opinion... A humans "right" to self defense (yes, that includes the tools for it too) does NOT EVER END when they cross some others "property line"
"does not protect any right to carry a firearm" another absolutely ignorant statement (Especially if some so-called court says it, and if you actually believe it, what the hell are you doing here in the first place if not to troll)... what else could the part about "bear" in "keep and bear arms" mean?????
You exhibit some dangerous traits in a firearm owner:
- Emotional response to a fact or opinion, including anger and name calling.
- The belief that one isn't required to leave a premise when told to do so.
- The attitude that your opinion supercedes the law.
If someone enters my home armed I will ask them to disarm or leave. If they don't the police will be called and they'll be physically escorted out and charged with trespass. If they react with any threat of violence they'll be dealt with accordingly. Now if you proceed through life with the attitude you may do what you please on my property you may eventually be arrested or worse. THIS IS THE BASIS OF CASTLE DOCTRINE.
Let's get you up to speed on this topic. Read the sources below before responding so we know what we're writing about, OK? ALL law is open to interpretation, which is found in case-law. None of us may agree with the position but unfortunately this is currently the law of the land and has been defined this way as far back as 1897. We expect this federal ruling to be appealed to the SCOTUS. This will require the high court to undertake the "carry" issue.
Here's the facts. Now take it up with an attorney and report your findings. Don't insult me over facts you don't like.
--KACHALSKY V. COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER--
Federal Court Decision determines that denial of a license to carry a handgun is not a violation of the second amendment - Sept. 2011 -
Link Removed. The written federal court ruling specifically makes the following statements.
As so many courts considering statutory challenges post-Heller have observed, the Heller Court, while not setting the outer bounds of the Second Amendment, explicitly stated that
“[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Id. at 626. Crucially, the Court observed,
“From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
The language of Heller makes clear that the Court recognized
“not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” 554 U.S. at 626, but rather a much narrower right—namely the “right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home,” id. at 635.
Heller’s limiting language makes clear that the Supreme Court did not disturb its prior ruling in Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897), where it
“recognized that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.” Dorr, 741 F. Supp. 2d at 1005 (citing Robertson, 165 U.S. at 281–82).23
The Dorr court observed that the plaintiffs in that case failed to “direct[] the court’s attention to any contrary authority recognizing a right to carry a concealed weapon under the Second Amendment and the court’s own research efforts . . . revealed none.” Accordingly, it concluded, “a right to carry a concealed weapon under the Second Amendment has not been recognized to date.” Id.; see also People v. Flores, 86 Cal. Rptr. 3d 804, 808 (Ct. App. 2008) (citing Robertson and Heller in holding that “[g]iven this implicit approval [in Heller] of concealed firearm prohibitions, we cannot read Heller to have altered the courts’ longstanding understanding that such prohibitions are constitutional”); Mack v. United States, 6 A.3d 1224, 1236 (D.C. 2010) (citing Robertson and Heller and noting “it simply is not obvious that the Second Amendment secures a right to carry a concealed weapon”).
--DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER--
The Supreme Court determined in Heller that the right was an indivdual one but stated
"nothing in our opinion should 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 firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not
“a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
--
Mentioned this thread to our attorney a little while ago. He provided the citations. But I forgot, you regularly challenge some very smart attorneys on this forum. Education is a wonderful thing... it will set you free!
