Firearm restrictions in Boston and Brookline don't violate 2nd Amendment

[Wendell]

Restrictive firearms rules in Boston and Brookline are constitutional and do not infringe on the Second Amendment's right to bear arms, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit said in a decision. The First Circuit of the US Court of Appeals ruled that the right to self-defense is at its "zenith inside the home," and the right is "plainly more circumscribed" outside. The "core right" protected by the Second Amendment is for citizens to use arms in defense of home, the court said in its decision. "Public carriage of firearms for self- defense falls outside the perimeter of this core right."
https://www.masslive.com/news/index....in_boston.html

[JRB]

Nothing good comes of this.

[spinmove_]

The 2A does not specify “where” a person may bear arms only that they simply have the right and that it shall not be infringed upon. Saying that people cannot bear arms outside of their homes is most definitely an infringement...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bigghoss]

What bill of rights were they reading?

[HCountyGuy]

Obviously those judges missed the ”AND BEAR” portion of the Second Amendment.

Personally I dislike cities having their own super special carry permits one tends to need to have connections to obtain just to carry in that city.


Makes me glad I live in a gun-friendly state with preemption over municipalities in regards to firearm carry.

One more argument for national reciprocity IMO. Would love a SCOTUS ruling that effectively strikes down policies and practices like this.

[GardoneVT]

Mods here are shit, so this post might not clear the air as I wish it so. That said the legal issue here raises a point; we can’t simultaneously argue for unrestricted right to keep and bear arms while also supporting background checks and prohibitions of arms for convicts. CCW permits are documented exceptions to state prohibitions on public carry of guns; so how can one argue a Constitutionally protected , unrestricted right to carry as grounds for a legal permit which exempts the holder from a law that infringes on the same Constitution?

Either get rid of CCW permits and accept that meth users , convicted rapists & car salesman can go about armed , or accept state level (and thus city level) regulation of firearms with statutory permits issued on a conditional basis; usually those conditions involve not being a cretin. In some zip codes the condition is having a lot of money and friends in the issuing agency, which is where most reasonable peoples’ issues with most jurisdictions are in this regard.

[Kukuforguns]

Link to opinion.

[Robinson]

The "core right" protected by the Second Amendment is for citizens to use arms in defense of home, the court said in its decision.

I'd like to think that the court would have a firm grasp on the ideological and practical origins of the Bill of Rights. In this case I have to conclude that they are clueless about those origins in relation to the 2nd Amendment or are being dishonest.

In other words, their statement about the "core right" is simply incorrect in light of the 2nd Amendment's historical origins. The "core right" protected by the 2nd Amendment is for citizens to not be outgunned by the central government. Also, the Bill of Rights is not a list of things that citizens are allowed to have or do by the Government, but rather a list of restrictions on the Government setting certain rights beyond its ability to interfere with. That distinction is obviously lost on this court.

Knowledge of the communications shared by the originators of the Bill of Rights provides an understanding of its context. It's all there to read, perhaps this court should do so.

[blues]

If Paul Revere were alive today he'd be arrested for disturbing the peace and having others create a fire hazard by putting lanterns in the steeple of the Old North Church.

[RevolverRob]

I'd like to see the mental gymnastics First Circuit went through to draw that conclusion. By contrast, People v. Aguilar (Illinois Supreme Court Case) concluded the following after reviewing McDonald v. City of Chicago and Heller

Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that "the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense" (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that "individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right" (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that "[s]elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day" (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036).[21]

(Bolded emphasis mine, italicized emphasis in original SCOTUS opinion)

___

How one interprets McDonald and Heller to allow the circumscription of defensive rights to be limited to the home is an incredible feat. I'd love to see this one go to SCOTUS to be overturned. Perhaps it would finally allow the overturning of the Slaughter-House Cases and force incorporation of the Federal Bill of Rights through the 14th Amendment. Such an approach would eventually end the patchwork of state-to-state regulations on Federally protected rights. It would also streamline certain aspects of civil rights procedure and provide a greater degree of due process.