• 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.

The Exception Swallows The Rule. Dave Kopel on Bearing Arms in sensitive places. NYSRA v. Bruen

Doug_Nightmare

Active member
Joined
Nov 21, 2018
Messages
641
Location
Washington Island, WISCONSIN. Out in Lake Michigan
Kopel said:
The existence of exceptions to the right to keep arms does not negate the Second Amendment's text that Americans in general have a right to keep arms. Likewise, the Court's statement that some places can be placed off-limits to arms bearing does not negate the Second Amendment's text that Americans generally have a right to bear arms.

 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,174
Location
here nc
ah dougie...
your reason site goes to the headline only...nothing otherwise...

therefore the Kobel quote taken out of context is meaningless...

oh and your 2018 SSRN abstract quote is cut off and missing critical text explaining the creation purpose of the article in the first place...

best to you on your Island out in Lake Michigan...
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,724
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
"The 'Sensitive Places' Doctrine: Locational Limits on the Right to Bear Arms"

First off, the supreme court has never created a 'Sensitive Places' Doctrine. So, right off the bat we have two attorneys lying through their teeth, or they live in a fantasy world.

Quote from above brief.
In 1988, Congress outlawed carrying a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a ‘‘Federal facility.’’208 This was defined as ‘‘a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.”209 A person may not be prosecuted unless the facility has posted signs, or the person independently knows that the prohibition exists.210 The arms ban includes adjacent parking lots that the federal government owns or leases, and which have been posted.211

208. 18 U.S.C. § 930; PL 100–690, § 6215 (Nov. 18, 1988), 102 Stat 4181.
209. Id.
210. Id.
211. Id.
Public Law per foot note 208 below.
Where in that Public Law does "includes adjacent parking lots" exist? It doesn't.
The term 'Federal facility' means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.
 

Attachments

  • PL 100-690 1988.pdf
    315.9 KB · Views: 2

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,831
Location
Granite State of Mind
ah dougie...
your reason site goes to the headline only...nothing otherwise...

therefore the Kobel quote taken out of context is meaningless...

oh and your 2018 SSRN abstract quote is cut off and missing critical text explaining the creation purpose of the article in the first place...

best to you on your Island out in Lake Michigan...

Or, you could have clicked on that headline link, and linked to the full article.

 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,724
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
More on ‘sensitive locations’

The historical record therefore supports Justice Alito's statements at oral argument: "Could we analyze the sensitive place question by asking whether this is a place where the state has taken alternative means to safeguard those who frequent that place? If it's a … place like courthouse, for example, a government building, where everybody has to go through a magnetometer and there are security officials there, that would qualify as a sensitive place."
But if this becomes the standard then along with that standard comes two responsibilities. First, those places must provide a place for persons entering a place to stow their firearm/weapon while in that sensitive place. And second, qualified immunity does not exist, meaning the government is 100% responsible for any persons loss because of firearm/weapon violence occurring in that sensitive place.

This would also mean persons' vehicles cannot have restrictions in the "right" to carry concealed.

When the court creates a slippery slope, chaos will always exist, providing an ambiguous criteria.
 

JTHunter2

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
383
Location
Planet Earth
Aren't there certain states (KY or TN come to mind) that have passed laws over the last several years that state that, if a business mandates "No Carry", then they are responsible for the protection of their customers?
 
Top