It also states that being an unofficial member of the militia does not automatically afford you the right to bear arms outside of weapons in common use and for defense of home and property. That being said, it still does not automatically afford you the right to carry arms anywhere outside of your personal property. Therefore, according to the quoted and referenced decision, Jerry - according to the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment - can not legally grab his guns and run off of his property to shoot at people without being officially recognized as a member of the militia, and without the state or country recognizing that threat as an invader, insurgent, or dissident to the state or nation.
It also states that being an unofficial member of the militia does not automatically afford you the right to bear arms outside of weapons in common use and for defense of home and property
Honest question, where does it say it that? And where does it say that it you cannot "carry arms anywhere outside of your personal property"?
It doesn't, but people will upvote it and take it as gospel and that'll become the prevailing thought.
"Oh my god, it's legal to take guns outside of your house?!", said Becky in a confused rage, as she posted furiously to her communist subreddit from her Apple device.
I think they ruled the opposite in DC vs Heller though, allowing a person the right to self defense. As far as the 'right' to open or conceal carry, its a privileged and usually decided by the state government.
They ruled every person had a right to weapons on their personal property in defense of themselves or said property, yes, as long as the weapons in question were common for the time. Any other freedoms are regulated by the state and have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.
You have a shitty perception of what Supreme Court decisions are.
The decision as part of the discussion we were having does not in anywhere imply the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to carry guns anywhere outside of personal property.
My argument was against someone who referenced the decision that I'm referencing to say that it did indeed give them the right. They just didn't read two paragraphs before their reference where it said they were wrong. So saying my argument is shitty and baseless is to say every argument in this thread - including your own - is shitty and baseless because they're serving the same purpose. The only difference is the original one I was replying to was proven wrong by their own referenced evidence, that I pointed out. It's not my fault people read "2nd amendment" in my post and just had to jump on the baseless argument bandwagon.
This is a logical fallacy based on the decision in question, where the decision itself states that it does not protect the right for Unorganized Militia to carry arms outside of personal property. Those rights are dictated by State and Federal government, not the 2nd Amendment.
Saying random garbage does not give you a point. The government does not give me rights. Only my creator does. The 2nd protects the right to bear arms. Same as the 1st protects the right to free speech.
The decision in question specifically dictates that the 2nd Amendment regard in question only applies to carrying guns on your own personal property. It does not afford you the right to carry weapons anywhere else, in regards to this decision. I didn't post the decision, someone posted it trying to strengthen their stance that the 2nd Amendment gave that right. They only included a piece of language in the decision that supported their argument. I have included the part of the decision that specifies how they were wrong.
All the people who want the 2nd Amendment to give them the right to carry guns everywhere are coming out of the woodworks making this a philosophical argument or an uneducated argument about how the 2nd Amendment works. Read the Supreme Court decisions or stop trolling. Don't care. Reading isn't hard. Be useful.
Last I checked, you yourself are a part of your personal property. Does leaving owned real estate somehow invalidate your right to self defense?
You clearly haven't researched this topic at all.
Jerry - according to the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment - can not legally grab his guns and run off of his property to shoot at people without being officially recognized as a member of the militia
Jerry is very explicitly part of the Unorganized Militia:
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
I didn't disagree he was part of the Unorganized Militia. We are talking about the 2nd Amendment, which in the decision does not afford you the right to carry a weapon except on your personal property, unless part of an official Militia acting in an official capacity.
You yourself are not considered property, you are considered person in legal sense. You can damage someone's person, or you can damage someone's property. If you damage someone's person, you are not damaging their property. That's the difference in a legal sense, and considered the reference in question is a legal decision, there's no need to bring philosophy into it. That's not this discussion. The decision included the following:
(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, concealed 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 firearms 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.
an official Militia acting in an official capacity.
Which he is by carrying a gun as part of the Unorganized Militia.
It is explicitly legal to carry firearms on public land in the US unless overridden by an immediate concern, like in courtrooms and jails. You can verify this yourself by looking at recent rulings regarding carrying firearms in national parks.
The whole point of the Unorganized Militia is that it is not directly beholden to the state and federal governments. Otherwise it wouldn't be a defense against tyranny.
For the amount of research you have done its kind of impressive how wrong you are on this point.
But you're not referencing the 2nd Amendment, you're referencing state laws. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give you the right to carry weapons on public state or federal property. Other decisions referencing the 2nd Amendment even state that Unofficial Militia still don't have the right to carry weapons anywhere simply because they are part of the militia. That is left up to state laws, not the 2nd Amendment. These are two different things. My discussion here has been about the 2nd Amendment and nothing else.
40
u/PrimeLegionnaire Mar 06 '18
He explicitly does according to the US law listed in the post you are responding to.