That's very irresponsible on your part. Another reason why handguns ought to be illegal for civilians to own.
What is very irresponsible about the post you quoted? I will emulate your post... Ahem That is very short sighted of you. I hope you have a flash light when you need one.
the second amendment specifically protects the individuals right to keep and bear arms, having nothing at all to do with any militia.
Leaving a weapon in the trunk of your car with a round chambered show's very poor judgement on your part. Thats perfect for someone who breaks into the trunk of your car and finds your cache of weapons with one already loaded to go.
It's from the syllabus, not the actual opinion. No. If there was a change from 1791 it happened in 1868.
I guess cops show poor judgment all the time then? Or the military? Judging someone without knowing the particulars is in poor taste. You don't know what kind of car s/he has, what other security measures s/he has taken, or even what part of the city s/he lives in. When I had a trunk gun, I had it loaded without a chambered round, but it was also connected to the car with a santacruz gun lock that was bolted to the frame of the car. He might have something like this too. A strong lock box or even a cable lock on the rifle makes it a harder target. The best security is concealment though. No one will steal it is they don't know it is there. The last time my car was broken into, they didn't bother looking in the trunk, but grabbing the bag in the back of my seat and leaving quickly. I also see that there was no round chambered from his original post too.
Only as forms of private property in the class called, Arms; which are secured in State Constitutions. Acquire and possess cannot be synonymous nor interchangeable with keep and bear for the Militia of the United States.
That specific point was not addressed by that holding and provided no rationale that was enumerated in our federal Constitution as the federal doctrine of the United States.
Its obvious that you and I have a difference of opinion and as such will have to agree to disagree on this thread.
I'll take your word for it, I never read that syllabus. Doesn't matter either way, dadoalex never came back . . . That is way too far into the weeds for the discussion I was having. Besides, Presser should be read to enforce the right to arms on the states "even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view" and make incorporation essentially moot . . .
Acquire and possess cannot be synonymous nor interchangeable with keep and bear for the Militia of the United States
I believe and petition for redress of grievances regarding that ruling. Only keep and bear are the terms specifically enumerated in our Second Amendment; since we must distinguish, acquire and posses is already enumerated in State Constitutions and available through due process by the general government concerning our privileges and immunities as civil persons in our republic. Our federal Congress is already delegated the power to Arm the Militia of the United States in Article 1, Section 8.
the supreme court called bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on your argument. the second amendment protects the individuals right to keep and bear arms. which is identical to acquire and posses
Arming the militia of the United States is delegated to our federal Congress, therefore, keep and bear cannot be the same as acquire and posses. Regulation of rights in private property has traditionally been held to be a traditional police power of a State.
the supreme court called bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on that argument. having nothing to do with my argument. you remain refuted
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
