They are considered federal land so basically get treated the same as if you tried to bring a gun into the capitol.
Don't do this btw.
This is incorrect. It is 100% legal to carry a firearm in a National Park assuming that you are legally allowed to carry in that particular state.
You cannot carry a firearm into any federal building however, which includes places like the capitol building, post offices, or buildings within National Parks such as museums, ranger stations, gift shops, etc.
Well regulated
means well-supplied and ready to go on a moment's notice
I'd say well-maintained and prepared for use. As in tools need be well-maintained to be useful.
In working order which is why you had to register your firearm and have it inspected to make sure it worked. And that ready to go at a moment's notice was because they were needed for the defense of the country. Public carry was banned in a good chunk of the states.
Then why are morbidly obese, middle aged men with zero combat training allowed to own guns?
No it doesn't lmao
Well supplied means well supplied
As does "well-regulated," especially at the time when that amendment was drafted.
Sense of "adjust (a clock, etc.) with reference to a standard of accuracy" is by 1660s. Related: Regulated; regulating.
Did you read your own source? Or just stop at the first sentence?
I've seen dictionary arguers do this all the time. You say that a word means one thing, and they say, "No, it doesn't." Then they cite a dictionary which provides a few definitions, one of which is in the sense that the subject was using it, and they point to the existence of literally any other definition as evidence that "it does not mean that."
Yeah? Thats still the same meaning as today. Controlling based on a standard.
Shall not be infringed. As someone else pointed out there's already a TRO, this is just a political stunt.
Your right to bear arms is not infringed by specific controls.
You have a right to freedom of religion but local codes still come into okay for sacrifices/burnt offerings/etc.
Biden-appointed U.S. District Court Judge David Urias said during a Wednesday hearing that the order violated the Constitution.
"The violation of a constitutional right, even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury," Urias said during the hearing.
I also disagree with the current ruling on roe v wade
Sucks to be you then.
It's pretty great to be me, man. My life is kickass.
Cool. Enjoy your Saturday night on here, I'm flushing and heading out.
A well regulated militia shall not be infringed
A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.
In the above sentence, who has the right to keep and eat food, "the people," or "a well balanced breakfast?"
It sounds like the balanced breakfast is the basis for everything that follows
So if you skip breakfast you don't deserve the right to food? No lunch or dinner? Snacks ist verboten?
It clearly says the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed. You know you're wrong.
You wrote a dumb shit sentence because the militia is the cause of the clause that follows in this stance, and in your example a breakfast is not the cause for keeping food but rather breakfast food.
You made a bad example and declared it victory lol
It's not a bad example, it's gramatically the exact same, and instead of admitting you're wrong you're choosing to stamp your feet like an obtuse child. You're free to do so, but everyone else is free to read your shame.
Edit: wait, different person. You're choosing to stamp your feet on behalf of another* like an obtuse child, 'scuse me.
You're posting in a public forum home slice.
If you're intent on a private conversation, DMs are right there.
No no, just clarifying, you're free to be wrong all you like as well.
You're as bad at being witty as you are at being correct.
No u.
The hell is this weird strawman. Im not arguing against food im telling you how a sentence is written. As written, a balanced breakfast is the entire reason people have the right to food.
If you paid attention in English class youd know this
Just a flourish of words that dont matter?
Yes, actually.
How convenient, the words that dont matter are the ones you dont want to matter
Let me try to explain:
The 2nd Amendment has two clauses, a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The operative clause is the one that secures the right, and the prefatory clause informs it. However, not being the operative clause, it's ultimately not anything from which rights are derived, nor restricted. The bill of rights wasn't written to restrict the rights of the people.
The prefatory clause is, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...," which informs the reader as to why the latter exists. So, you can argue until you're blue in the face about how "well regulated militia" was intended, but ultimately, its immaterial as it's not part of the operative clause.
"... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This is the operative clause and the only one you really need to be concerned about. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, and it shall not be infringed. That is very easy to understand. It's hard to like if you are a violent criminal and prefer that your violence and violations of the rights of others go uncontested and unprevented, and you don't want to get shot. For everybody else, this is not only perfectly acceptable and necessary, it's intuitive.
Its still not empty words, it is intent, which we supposedly have a history of using when interpreting the constitution for modern cases.
and you don't want to get shot.
I dont think America is the place to be if you dont want to get shot. Did you write this thinking we have a good track record or something?
I didn't say it was "empty words," I said it was immaterial, as in, from a legal standpoint.
Yawn, it's clear you don't know how to read literature from the period. There's plenty of explanation of the phrasing, indeed by the writers themselves in contemporary missives. But you don't really care, you already have your ideology.
Go read any Jane Austen and you'll learn. Even better, the Federalist Papers, or the Adams/Jefferson letters.
Or more specifically, Federalist #29, which argued that the US should not have a standing military. THAT was the reasoning behind 2A. Of course our forebears learned pretty quickly that was a dumb ass hill to die on, and we have a huge standing military. The reasons for the 2A have been buried in progress, yet scared neanderthals still feel the need to cower with their guns in fear that the big bad world will touch them.
Thanks for finding which paper it was... I have a copy but didn't feel like finding it and finding the right paper. Call me lazy 🤷‍♂️
And in the end, they codified what they saw as a natural, inborn, individual right. That wasn't by accident - Jefferson was very intentional in the words he chose (and they argued over, properly). Knowing the language had to be clear and concise, this is what resulted. It's pretty clear if you've read anything from 1600 onward.
Some of how the writing of the time (and place, Britain) flows is, I suspect, partly an influence of French language that some also knew - "twenty and four years" is clear French construction, not English at all. Keeping in mind that before Shakespeare, the "English language" such as it was, was considered beneath "proper" Brits. Shakespeare marks the beginning of that change, so the French language influence carried on for a long time among the upper classes as a distinction.
It's pretty interesting to see this same kind of complex construction (from our perspective) in period writings, but also in many science papers today, where complex ideas are strung together in paragraph-long sentences in an attempt to capture the detail and nuance. Medical journals are particularly guilty of this.
yet scared neanderthals still feel the need to cower with their gun
I'd argue the scared neanderthals are the ones pants-shittingly terrified of imagine objects.
Keeping contemporary weapons is not cowardice, it's just smart. Intentionally disarming yourself is colossolly stupid. Pretending that the world isn't dangerous is mental illness.
Literally constitutional. States can set the laws and regulations around firearms, as established by supreme court precedent.
The supreme court is wrong about 2A. Laws and regulations are infringements, which the constitution specifically prohibits.
This is patently false. Take a look at all the restrictions on the 1st amendment. I'm not allowed to walk into congressional chambers and scream at the top of my lungs in protest am I?
Those laws prevent you from infringing on the rights of others. There are no laws regarding firearms that prevent you from infringing on the rights of others; they merely infringe on yours.
If you possess any right to any firearm whatsoever, your right to bear arms has not been infringed.
The type of "arms" are unspecified.
To think anything else is to simply not have a functioning grasp on sanity.
This is logically inverted.
No, it really isn't.
Since 2008. It was well understood that regulations were fine until then
I look forward to seeing you proven incorrect by the courts. The TRO is already in place.
All that would mean is that there is a current disagreement. The assault weapons ban was constitutional. California’s regulations on firearms is constitutional. Those are all court rulings with a lot more gravitas than a NM TRO.
There is no right via the second amendment for the unregulated possession or carry of firearms, just like there is no right in the first amendment to unlimited free speech. Those are interpretations that are entirely grounded in an optimistic layperson’s interpretation of what a multi century old complex body of laws actually should mean, rather than the actual legal interpretations.
The government tightly regulates speech. It’s allowed to, over-generous interpretations of the First be damned. It is the same thing with firearms.
It’s culture war bullshit that will go back and forth for another century if we last that long. The pendulum is currently in a pro-gun direction. At some point it will swing back and we will have a federal ban on weapons and mag caps again.
The problem of course is the American gun fetish, not the guns themselves. As long as people culturally fetishize guns as symbols of freedom and masculinity, we’re going to have this. It’s got an intersection with Southern and African American honor culture that escalated violence, and an increasing intersection with right wing domestic terrorism, which in turn informs mass shootings. But it’s easier to do an ineffective gun ban than address that.
I mean, that's a nice wall of text, but it isn't going to make this order any more constitutional. Law enforcement isn't enforcing it, and the state AG isn't even defending it apparently.
Biden-appointed U.S. District Court Judge David Urias said during a Wednesday hearing that the order violated the Constitution.
"The violation of a constitutional right, even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury," Urias said during the hearing.
Do you take every district court decision to be the last word on what is or isn’t constitutional, or do you wait for the supreme court to rule?
What is “constitutional” changes all the time. The AWB was constitutional. Mag limits were constitutional. Background checks are constitutional.
At some point, this may be found to be constitutional, or not, but it’s not like the constitution is some unchanging document, and it certainly doesn’t mean that federal or state governments cannot restrict who can buy which firearms under which conditions, or regulate how they may be legally carried. That’s been the case forever.
There's already a temporary restraining order halting enforcement
So is forced jury duty and the draft. But many can only count to two.
I'm no expert on the US Constitution, but I was under the impression that the second amendment basically lets you have guns (well, something something well regulated militia, but that part is universally ignored by now). It doesn't say you're allowed to carry in public. I know states already get to set carry laws, which is why some states are open vs concealed carry. I don't see how this is much different. It's not like they're even saying you can't have guns at your home.
Literally unconstitutional.
Yet there’s plenty of precedent at the federal and state level for places where carrying guns is not allowed. 🤔
Specific places, generally, not open public places as specified in the article.
Are national parks not considered open public places?
Thanks to Obama, no seriously, you are allowed to carry firearms in almost all national parks.
https://www.nps.gov/articles/firearms-in-national-parks.htm
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna35484383
They are considered federal land so basically get treated the same as if you tried to bring a gun into the capitol.
Don't do this btw.
This is incorrect. It is 100% legal to carry a firearm in a National Park assuming that you are legally allowed to carry in that particular state.
You cannot carry a firearm into any federal building however, which includes places like the capitol building, post offices, or buildings within National Parks such as museums, ranger stations, gift shops, etc.
Well regulated
means well-supplied and ready to go on a moment's notice
I'd say well-maintained and prepared for use. As in tools need be well-maintained to be useful.
In working order which is why you had to register your firearm and have it inspected to make sure it worked. And that ready to go at a moment's notice was because they were needed for the defense of the country. Public carry was banned in a good chunk of the states.
Then why are morbidly obese, middle aged men with zero combat training allowed to own guns?
No it doesn't lmao
Well supplied means well supplied
As does "well-regulated," especially at the time when that amendment was drafted.
No it didnt
Low-effort and incorrect.
Its historically always meant basically what it means today https://www.etymonline.com/word/regulate#:\~:text=early%2015c.%2C%20regulaten%2C%20%22,to%20lead%2C%20rule%22).
Did you read your own source? Or just stop at the first sentence?
I've seen dictionary arguers do this all the time. You say that a word means one thing, and they say, "No, it doesn't." Then they cite a dictionary which provides a few definitions, one of which is in the sense that the subject was using it, and they point to the existence of literally any other definition as evidence that "it does not mean that."
Yeah? Thats still the same meaning as today. Controlling based on a standard.
Shall not be infringed. As someone else pointed out there's already a TRO, this is just a political stunt.
Your right to bear arms is not infringed by specific controls.
You have a right to freedom of religion but local codes still come into okay for sacrifices/burnt offerings/etc.
Biden-appointed U.S. District Court Judge David Urias said during a Wednesday hearing that the order violated the Constitution.
"The violation of a constitutional right, even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury," Urias said during the hearing.
I also disagree with the current ruling on roe v wade
Sucks to be you then.
It's pretty great to be me, man. My life is kickass.
Cool. Enjoy your Saturday night on here, I'm flushing and heading out.
A well regulated militia shall not be infringed
In the above sentence, who has the right to keep and eat food, "the people," or "a well balanced breakfast?"
It sounds like the balanced breakfast is the basis for everything that follows
So if you skip breakfast you don't deserve the right to food? No lunch or dinner? Snacks ist verboten?
It clearly says the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed. You know you're wrong.
You wrote a dumb shit sentence because the militia is the cause of the clause that follows in this stance, and in your example a breakfast is not the cause for keeping food but rather breakfast food.
You made a bad example and declared it victory lol
It's not a bad example, it's gramatically the exact same, and instead of admitting you're wrong you're choosing to stamp your feet like an obtuse child. You're free to do so, but everyone else is free to read your shame.
Edit: wait, different person. You're choosing to stamp your feet on behalf of another* like an obtuse child, 'scuse me.
You're posting in a public forum home slice.
If you're intent on a private conversation, DMs are right there.
No no, just clarifying, you're free to be wrong all you like as well.
You're as bad at being witty as you are at being correct.
No u.
The hell is this weird strawman. Im not arguing against food im telling you how a sentence is written. As written, a balanced breakfast is the entire reason people have the right to food.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO
Sorry dude, keep studying both law and english.
Oh wow, the supreme court interpreted the constitution differently than me. I had no idea, i thought they agreed with me and banned guns long ago.
Well, you're wrong.
our third world rates of gun homicide are wrong
Yes, murder is wrong, regardless of weapon used.
Yawn, this ignorant trope again. Go learn to read 17th and 18th century prose.
Is part of the dependent clause. Its reasoning.
If you paid attention in English class youd know this
Just a flourish of words that dont matter?
Yes, actually.
How convenient, the words that dont matter are the ones you dont want to matter
Let me try to explain:
The 2nd Amendment has two clauses, a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The operative clause is the one that secures the right, and the prefatory clause informs it. However, not being the operative clause, it's ultimately not anything from which rights are derived, nor restricted. The bill of rights wasn't written to restrict the rights of the people.
The prefatory clause is, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...," which informs the reader as to why the latter exists. So, you can argue until you're blue in the face about how "well regulated militia" was intended, but ultimately, its immaterial as it's not part of the operative clause.
"... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This is the operative clause and the only one you really need to be concerned about. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, and it shall not be infringed. That is very easy to understand. It's hard to like if you are a violent criminal and prefer that your violence and violations of the rights of others go uncontested and unprevented, and you don't want to get shot. For everybody else, this is not only perfectly acceptable and necessary, it's intuitive.
Its still not empty words, it is intent, which we supposedly have a history of using when interpreting the constitution for modern cases.
I dont think America is the place to be if you dont want to get shot. Did you write this thinking we have a good track record or something?
I didn't say it was "empty words," I said it was immaterial, as in, from a legal standpoint.
Yawn, it's clear you don't know how to read literature from the period. There's plenty of explanation of the phrasing, indeed by the writers themselves in contemporary missives. But you don't really care, you already have your ideology.
Go read any Jane Austen and you'll learn. Even better, the Federalist Papers, or the Adams/Jefferson letters.
Or more specifically, Federalist #29, which argued that the US should not have a standing military. THAT was the reasoning behind 2A. Of course our forebears learned pretty quickly that was a dumb ass hill to die on, and we have a huge standing military. The reasons for the 2A have been buried in progress, yet scared neanderthals still feel the need to cower with their guns in fear that the big bad world will touch them.
Thanks for finding which paper it was... I have a copy but didn't feel like finding it and finding the right paper. Call me lazy 🤷‍♂️
And in the end, they codified what they saw as a natural, inborn, individual right. That wasn't by accident - Jefferson was very intentional in the words he chose (and they argued over, properly). Knowing the language had to be clear and concise, this is what resulted. It's pretty clear if you've read anything from 1600 onward.
Some of how the writing of the time (and place, Britain) flows is, I suspect, partly an influence of French language that some also knew - "twenty and four years" is clear French construction, not English at all. Keeping in mind that before Shakespeare, the "English language" such as it was, was considered beneath "proper" Brits. Shakespeare marks the beginning of that change, so the French language influence carried on for a long time among the upper classes as a distinction.
It's pretty interesting to see this same kind of complex construction (from our perspective) in period writings, but also in many science papers today, where complex ideas are strung together in paragraph-long sentences in an attempt to capture the detail and nuance. Medical journals are particularly guilty of this.
I'd argue the scared neanderthals are the ones pants-shittingly terrified of imagine objects.
Keeping contemporary weapons is not cowardice, it's just smart. Intentionally disarming yourself is colossolly stupid. Pretending that the world isn't dangerous is mental illness.
Your fear is rotting your brain.
Literally constitutional. States can set the laws and regulations around firearms, as established by supreme court precedent.
The supreme court is wrong about 2A. Laws and regulations are infringements, which the constitution specifically prohibits.
This is patently false. Take a look at all the restrictions on the 1st amendment. I'm not allowed to walk into congressional chambers and scream at the top of my lungs in protest am I?
Those laws prevent you from infringing on the rights of others. There are no laws regarding firearms that prevent you from infringing on the rights of others; they merely infringe on yours.
If you possess any right to any firearm whatsoever, your right to bear arms has not been infringed.
The type of "arms" are unspecified.
To think anything else is to simply not have a functioning grasp on sanity.
This is logically inverted.
No, it really isn't.
Since 2008. It was well understood that regulations were fine until then
I look forward to seeing you proven incorrect by the courts. The TRO is already in place.
All that would mean is that there is a current disagreement. The assault weapons ban was constitutional. California’s regulations on firearms is constitutional. Those are all court rulings with a lot more gravitas than a NM TRO.
There is no right via the second amendment for the unregulated possession or carry of firearms, just like there is no right in the first amendment to unlimited free speech. Those are interpretations that are entirely grounded in an optimistic layperson’s interpretation of what a multi century old complex body of laws actually should mean, rather than the actual legal interpretations.
The government tightly regulates speech. It’s allowed to, over-generous interpretations of the First be damned. It is the same thing with firearms.
It’s culture war bullshit that will go back and forth for another century if we last that long. The pendulum is currently in a pro-gun direction. At some point it will swing back and we will have a federal ban on weapons and mag caps again.
The problem of course is the American gun fetish, not the guns themselves. As long as people culturally fetishize guns as symbols of freedom and masculinity, we’re going to have this. It’s got an intersection with Southern and African American honor culture that escalated violence, and an increasing intersection with right wing domestic terrorism, which in turn informs mass shootings. But it’s easier to do an ineffective gun ban than address that.
I mean, that's a nice wall of text, but it isn't going to make this order any more constitutional. Law enforcement isn't enforcing it, and the state AG isn't even defending it apparently.
Biden-appointed U.S. District Court Judge David Urias said during a Wednesday hearing that the order violated the Constitution.
"The violation of a constitutional right, even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury," Urias said during the hearing.
Do you take every district court decision to be the last word on what is or isn’t constitutional, or do you wait for the supreme court to rule?
What is “constitutional” changes all the time. The AWB was constitutional. Mag limits were constitutional. Background checks are constitutional.
At some point, this may be found to be constitutional, or not, but it’s not like the constitution is some unchanging document, and it certainly doesn’t mean that federal or state governments cannot restrict who can buy which firearms under which conditions, or regulate how they may be legally carried. That’s been the case forever.
There's already a temporary restraining order halting enforcement
So is forced jury duty and the draft. But many can only count to two.
I'm no expert on the US Constitution, but I was under the impression that the second amendment basically lets you have guns (well, something something well regulated militia, but that part is universally ignored by now). It doesn't say you're allowed to carry in public. I know states already get to set carry laws, which is why some states are open vs concealed carry. I don't see how this is much different. It's not like they're even saying you can't have guns at your home.