• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Only in NYC: Self Defense Shooting’s Female Survivor Charged

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
".....we tend to see a great deal of bizarre and backward behavior permeating the cultures on the coast, especially when it comes to the Second Amendment, and particularly in the narrow-minded, left-centric collection of boroughs known as New York City.

That’s why it’s almost expected that a woman who shot an attacker in an undeniable act of self defense has been arrested."

https://keepandbear.com/news/nyc-self-defense-shootings-female-survivor-charged/
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,729
Location
here nc
uh grape, not saying this event isn’t true or didn’t actually occur as reported back on 31 dec 17 in new york city as reported initially by the Daily News, ( http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...man-shoots-neck-kicked-door-article-1.3729315 ) then promoted by Ammoland ( https://www.ammoland.com/2018/02/women-arrested-for-shooting-attacker-in-self-defense/#axzz58rylLBuW ) on the 28th of Feb 2018, then immediately pushed by several other ‘gun’ focused blogs, but...

you might wish to review the Daily News’s content and you will notice the similarity to other tabloids of questionable newsworthy articles! http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/new-york-daily-news-front-pages-2018-gallery-1.3732896
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
Don't shoot the messenger.

I provided the link for others to review and comment. It is not that old an event and fits what many would expect from NYC.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,357
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
All she has to do is rely on Heller.

Most don't catch this little tidbit in Heller.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 2788, 2797
Part II “We turn first to the meaning of the Second Amendment.”
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause.
Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”
Go read it for yourself.

And I don't think anyone has ever used it in their defence. This is a finding of the court. License to poses a firearm is unconstitutional, in the home or out on the street, period.
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,275
Location
northern wis
I would throw Caetano in there to.

On 21 March of 2016, the Supreme Court issued a remarkable and, apparently to the Court, non-controversial decision. In the Caetano PER CURIAM decision (pdf), the Court held that:

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v.Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010).
While the decision, which was unanimous, has far reaching implication beyond mere stun guns, stun gun bans have already started falling like dominoes
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,428
Location
Florida
All she has to do is rely on Heller.

Most don't catch this little tidbit in Heller.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 2788, 2797
Part II “We turn first to the meaning of the Second Amendment.”


Go read it for yourself.

And I don't think anyone has ever used it in their defence. This is a finding of the court. License to poses a firearm is unconstitutional, in the home or out on the street, period.
good luck
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,357
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Originally Posted by color of law
All she has to do is rely on Heller.

Most don't catch this little tidbit in Heller.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 2788, 2797
Part II “We turn first to the meaning of the Second Amendment.”


Go read it for yourself.

And I don't think anyone has ever used it in their defence. This is a finding of the court. License to poses a firearm is unconstitutional, in the home or out on the street, period.


good luck
In Florida, you're correct.

The Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, 177. (1803) stated: “Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.” And, in their closing the Marbury court, at page 179, stated: “Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed 588 (1876) declared that the right of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” was not granted by the Constitution. The understanding was that it was in existence before the Constitution.

This was clarified and confirmed in 2008, when the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) declared “we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.” The Court then cited Cruikshank as part of its historical analysis. Thus, Heller held that the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose was secured by the U.S. Constitution.

More importantly, Heller did not limit the right to bear arms. It specifically stated, “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed,’” id. The Court reiterated at page 613, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.”

Now that the USSC has declared the Second Amendment applies to the states (McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)) they too can’t regulate the keeping and bearing of arms in case of confrontation.

Additionally, the Supreme Court in Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U. S. ____ (2016) has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.”
 
Top