XPost: alt.politics.conservative, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sac.politics   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: JW@me.com   
      
   On 1/16/2019 1:21 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:   
   > On 1/16/2019 12:14 PM, Just Wondering wrote:   
   >> On 1/16/2019 12:35 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:   
   >>> On 1/16/2019 11:29 AM, Just Wondering wrote:   
   >>>> On 1/16/2019 11:36 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:   
   >>>>> On 1/16/2019 10:29 AM, Just Wondering wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 1/16/2019 11:06 AM, Reply to: albasani.kook@albasani.net wrote:   
   >>>>>>> Last Tuesday a 25-year-old woman in Chicago was waiting at the   
   >>>>>>> bus stop in the early morning when she was approached by a 19-   
   >>>>>>> year-old man with a gun. The Chicago Tribune describes what   
   >>>>>>> happened next:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> SEE ALSO: “The View” debates: Is every Republican who supports   
   >>>>>>> building the wall racist?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Laavion Goings Jr. was out of jail only two months when the 19-   
   >>>>>>> year-old walked up to a bus stop about a block from his home,   
   >>>>>>> pulled out a gun and tried to rob a woman on the Far South Side.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> But the woman had a gun too and fired first, hitting Goings in   
   >>>>>>> the chest, according to Chicago police. The teen ran back to his   
   >>>>>>> home and made it as far as a stairwell in the foyer of a   
   >>>>>>> building before collapsing in the 400 block of West 103rd Street.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> That’s where officers found him shortly before 6 a.m. Tuesday,   
   >>>>>>> just minutes after the shooting. He died within an hour at   
   >>>>>>> Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Video from across the street apparently captured the incident so   
   >>>>>>> police know exactly what happened. The intended victim had a   
   >>>>>>> concealed carry permit for her gun so she is not in any trouble   
   >>>>>>> with authorities. This is a clear case of self-defense.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> People have a fundamental right to protect themselves.  The woman   
   >>>>>> should not have had to ask government permission (a permit) to be   
   >>>>>> able to defend herself.   
   >>>>> "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not   
   >>>>> unlimited. 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."   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Justice Antonin Scalia - District of Columbia v. Heller   
   >>>>> June 26, 2008   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> A requirement for a permit to carry a concealed weapon is not an   
   >>>>> infringement of the right.  This is settled.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Please provide a citation to the U.S. Supreme Court opinion that   
   >>>> holds "a requirement for a permit to carry a concealed weapon is   
   >>>> not an infringement of the right."   
   >>>   
   >>> That's what Justice Scalia said in Heller.   
   >>   
   >> Nope. Scalia wrote in Heller:   
      
   Restoring what you clipped:   
      
   “As the Constitution of the United States, and the constitutions of   
   several of the states, in terms more or less comprehensive, declare the   
   right of the people to keep and bear arms, it has been a subject of   
   grave discussion, in some of the state courts, whether a statute   
   prohibiting persons, when not on a journey, or as travellers, from   
   wearing or carrying concealed weapons, be constitutional. There has been   
   a great difference of opinion on the question.” 2 J. Kent, Commentaries   
   on American Law *340, n. 2 (O. Holmes ed., 12th ed. 1873) (hereinafter   
   Kent).   
      
   "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of   
   the full scope of the Second Amendment , 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."   
      
   As anyone with a lick of brains can readily ascertain, the Heller   
   opinion DID NOT MAKE ANY HOLDING ON CONCEALED CARRY.  It did not even   
   make a statement in dicta to the effect that concealed carry laws are   
   constitutional.  To the contrary, Scalia quoted Kent's Commentaries that   
   there has been a great difference of opinion on the question.   
      
   > Scalia wrote this in Heller:   
   >   
   > "For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the   
   > question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were   
   > lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues."   
      
   I repeat, and this directly applies to your Heller quote:   
   As anyone with a lick of brains can readily ascertain, the Heller   
   opinion DID NOT MAKE ANY HOLDING ON CONCEALED CARRY.  It did not even   
   make a statement in dicta to the effect that concealed carry laws are   
   constitutional.  To the contrary, Scalia quoted Kent's Commentaries that   
   there has been a great difference of opinion on the question.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)