Rhode Island Supreme Court recognizes Second Amendment as an Individual Right

On June 10, the Rhode Island Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is a right held by individuals. The court's decision in Mosby vs. Devine was by a vote of 4 to 1, however, because one justice dissented on other issues.

Mr. Mosby contested the R.I. state Attorney General's rejection of his application for a concealed carry license under R.I.'s discretionay-issue licensing provision, claiming it violated the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 22 of Rhode Island's constitution, which reads "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

The justices said: "This court applies the traditional rule of construction that when words in the constitution are unambiguous, they must be given their plain, ordinary and generally accepted meaning. . . .Accordingly, we attribute the ordinary meaning to the phrase 'the people,' i.e. that it includes all inhabitants of the state. Thus, like the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and other rights provided to 'the people', we believe that the right provided in Art. I, Sec. 22 FLOWS TO THE PEOPLE INDIVIDUALLY."

 

The court also sent a warning shot over the bow of those who propose bans on firearms designed for defensive purposes, particularly handguns and semi-automatic versions of MODERN SERVICE RIFLES.

 

Recognizing the "militia" as being "composed of individuals," it noted that "to deny the people their individual right to keep appropriate arms could transform the militia into a toothless tiger. In the absence of an individual right to keep and bear arms, the government could deprive the people of their right to defend the State. . . .The citizens of this state are free to possess a rifle or shotgun, or a pistol or revolver in their homes, places of employment and on their property." "The purpose of the state's firearm laws is to prevent criminals and certain other persons from acquiring firearms generally and handguns in particular WITHOUT at the same time making unduly difficult such acquisition for other members of society. . .."

 

In my opinion, this is pretty much exactly what the Constitution intends, especially the part about service rifles.

this coud mean a number of things actually. i wonder if any other states will do the same, you wouldnt happen to know anything about that would you kabar?

jesus christ im sick of hearing about this shit.

 

there are a hell of a lot more pressing issues facing the world than your fucking guns. one issue voters are going to destroy this 'great' country.

america's obsession with all things violence is very tiring.

damn activist justices!!

http://www.moviebadgirls.com/capimage/Gun_Crazy_2_09.JPG'>

Impossible to predict

 

No way to predict what other state's Supreme Courts might or might not do. In Texas, District judges are elected, so they pretty much reflect the opinions of the majority of people who vote. The new chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court is Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson, the first African-American ever to serve as a chief justice in Texas. Justice Jefferson is one of the most conservative justices to ever serve on a modern Supreme Court in Texas, so it's possible something similar may occur here. In an interesting side-note, Justice Jefferson is a descendant of a slave who was owned by a white District judge during the 1850's.

 

I have long maintained that the first African-American President will be an extremely conservative, black born-again Christian woman, because she would recieve all the conservative vote, all the born-again Christian vote, most of the black vote and most of the female vote. My personal favorite was J.C. Watts, of Oklahoma, but he has withdrawn from politics, apparently. This may be some sort of strategic move, I don't know. Hope so. He'd be a very good President.

 

Seeking---as far as "one issue voters" goes, there are maany issues with which I agree with the Democrats on, but since they foolishly cling to the idea they are going to disarm the people, fuck it--FIRST THINGS FIRST. The Second Amendment is not some side issue---ask the Jews of Europe. Ask the Rwandans. Ask the Cambodians. Shit, ask ANY of the millions of innocent people murdered in genocidal pogroms of one stripe or another in the last century. The right to keep and bear arms is a basic fundamental right. If you can't see that, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to vote for people that want to disarm me, no matter what sort of Robin Hood program they claim to have. If the Democrats want to win elections, they need to stop acting like people who intend to become authoritarian, Mama-knows-best dictators. Lord knows, the Republicans are far from perfect.

Re: Impossible to predict

 

Originally posted by KaBar2

The Second Amendment is not some side issue---ask the Jews of Europe. Ask the Rwandans. Ask the Cambodians. Shit, ask ANY of the millions of innocent people murdered in genocidal pogroms of one stripe or another in the last century. If the Democrats want to win elections, they need to stop acting like people who intend to become authoritarian, Mama-knows-best dictators. Lord knows, the Republicans are far from perfect.

 

rwandan and cambodia can hardly be compared to america on any level. no amount of guns would have helped either of them. nor would it have helped the sudanese, the burmese, the hatians, etc. the problem in all of those countries are economical, cultural and religious, not simple 'not having guns'. if the rwandans had had guns, it would have just meant they could have killed more people faster.

1 in 5 cambodians has murdered someone. what does that tell you? that if if 10 out of every 10 cambodians had a gun, that somehow no one would have died?!

 

'liberals' think they know best when it comes to guns, so they're authoritarian, but conservatives think they know best when it comes to abortions, censorship, religion, morality, and they're....not authoritarian?! do you find yourself complaining about the liberal media too? jesus kabar, now i remember why i stopped talking to you. it's impossible to have an intelligent conversation with someone that subscribes to completely nonsensical theories.

 

do you realize how ridiculous your ideas begin to look when challenged?

Re: Impossible to predict

 

Originally posted by KaBar2

No way to predict what other state's Supreme Courts might or might not do. In Texas, District judges are elected, so they pretty much reflect the opinions of the majority of people who vote. The new chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court is Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson, the first African-American ever to serve as a chief justice in Texas. Justice Jefferson is one of the most conservative justices to ever serve on a modern Supreme Court in Texas, so it's possible something similar may occur here. In an interesting side-note, Justice Jefferson is a descendant of a slave who was owned by a white District judge during the 1850's.

 

I have long maintained that the first African-American President will be an extremely conservative, black born-again Christian woman, because she would recieve all the conservative vote, all the born-again Christian vote, most of the black vote and most of the female vote. My personal favorite was J.C. Watts, of Oklahoma, but he has withdrawn from politics, apparently. This may be some sort of strategic move, I don't know. Hope so. He'd be a very good President.

 

Seeking---as far as "one issue voters" goes, there are maany issues with which I agree with the Democrats on, but since they foolishly cling to the idea they are going to disarm the people, fuck it--FIRST THINGS FIRST. The Second Amendment is not some side issue---ask the Jews of Europe. Ask the Rwandans. Ask the Cambodians. Shit, ask ANY of the millions of innocent people murdered in genocidal pogroms of one stripe or another in the last century. The right to keep and bear arms is a basic fundamental right. If you can't see that, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to vote for people that want to disarm me, no matter what sort of Robin Hood program they claim to have. If the Democrats want to win elections, they need to stop acting like people who intend to become authoritarian, Mama-knows-best dictators. Lord knows, the Republicans are far from perfect.

 

You do have a point that an armed populace is able to defend the state.

 

However since you are using historical propaganda half-truths i'll take the liberty to counter your half-truths.

 

Poland stood no chance in face of German blitzkrieg Attacks. Some Jews DID resist in the Ghetto Uprising of 1941 and 1943. They created homemade weapons, used captured weapons, and smuggled weapons from other countries.

 

However most Jews were not aware they were being exterminated. Officially the Jews were being told by SS that they were being shipped to America, or to work in a camp until the war is over.

 

Obviously in reality something else happened. However whatever few Jews realized they were being exterminated did attempt to resist. Most famously in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Which did win a few small battles, however eventually was defeated due to superior German tactics and weaponry.

 

And On top of this it wasn't only Jews who were exterminated in Poland. The entire Polish nation-state was scheduled for extermination. Many atrocities were committed against the Polish people as well.

 

At the time Poland was home to millions of Jews. Most of those Jews spoke Polish and were part of regular polish society. To distinctly seperate them from the Poland is racist in itself. It's like saying oh America was attacked on 9/11 and some Blacks lost their lives as well.

 

Arms were available to anyone who wanted to join any of the 6 Official resistance movements and or any of the hundres of unofficial movements. Beyond that Germans passed laws which made it illegal for any Polish person or Jew to possess a radio, food or weaponry. If you were caught you were killed instantly.

 

Don't make it appear as if the Germans simply rolled into town and did as they pleased. Because there was a lot of organized resistance, unorganized resistance, sabotage, from Polish and Jewish people which took a lot of bravery/courage.

what a joke.

 

the whole genocide in rwanda and CURRENTLY in sudan occured when THE GOVERNMENT supplied ARMS to its people!

 

wake the fuck up.

arms did not save these poor people

they killed them.

 

*and just because a person is elected doesn't mean they reflect the opinions of the majority who elected them

 

elections are not always won by majority

and politicians are famous for changing their tunes once elected.

 

the world is not, nor will it ever be, as black and white as you make it.

 

black people won't automatically vote for a candidate who is black.

ever heard of an Uncle Tom?

For pete's sake

 

The entire point is that if only ONE SIDE of a genocidal situation has guns, then the side that has the guns can exterminate them. Your point about the Jews being members of Polish society is well taken. I guess they were foolish to trust their well-being to the government of Poland, huh?

 

Yes, the Jews did mount an uprising in Warsaw. I have an excellent book about it--"Resistance: The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising." What it tells me is that it is a lot easier to exterminate a bunch of people who have been disarmed and who are unprepared to resist than it is to exterminate people who have military rifles and a strong desire to kill Nazis. Also, there was a ongoing program to transport Jewish children to Palestine--the "kindertransport." So they DID know they were being rounded up and exterminated, at least some of them did.

 

Most of the people killed in Rwanda were killed with machetes and shovels. In Cambodia, they suffocated people with plastic bags to save bullets. Are you telling me that if every father in those murdered families had possessed a shotgun or a rifle that he would not have defended himself and his family? What the fuck? Of course he would have--he would have shot his attackers, and been completely justified in so doing. Defending oneself is completely okay.

hah rhode island. im there

kabar has me on his punkass ignore list i bet.

 

 

genocide becomes civil war when both sides are armed.

it doesn't end the conflict.

 

it eould be easier if we could just hand out guns to everyone

then we'd all be dead in no time flat.

rwandians, cambodians, and sudanese couldnt afford food, much less rifles and ammunition. not to mention, where were they going to get them from? hung qwa's rifle and pho shack?! jesus christ dude. would you please start injecting a little bit of fucking practical reality into your arguments?! if i wanted to be like you, i could just go on endlessly about how if we turned back the fucking sands of time and un-invented gun powder, that there would be nodeath. it's just as unrealistic as your idea of universal armament for peace.

societal reform is the answer, not guns. guns will NEVER bring peace.

 

 

kabar/fucking for virginity since 1807

 

 

**please do not bother replying to me. the lunacy ismore than i can stand.

not another gun thread....:(

http://www.kak.ru/images/archive/17/photoakademia/SHKOLA14.jpg'>

Re: Re: Impossible to predict

 

Originally posted by seeking

rwandan and cambodia can hardly be compared to america on any level. no amount of guns would have helped either of them. nor would it have helped the sudanese, the burmese, the hatians, etc. the problem in all of those countries are economical

 

that kinda like how my image box is electronical? :crazy:

Originally posted by mental invalid

damn activist justices!!

There is no such thing as an activist judge, just one who disagrees with you.

'liberals' think they know best when it comes to guns, so they're authoritarian, but conservatives think they know best when it comes to abortions, censorship, religion, morality, and they're....not authoritarian?!

Don't forget, they're also the ones who came up with a program called Total Information Awareness in which everyone becomes an "anti-terrorist" spy for the government and is encouraged to rat out their neighbors. Don't forget the Republicans are the ones trying to take away your privacy and freedom of speech. Don't forget the republicans are the ones that will lock you up for 2 years without charging you or telling anyone where you are because "the terrorists are out to get us." Don't forget, the republicans are the ones that want to give your money to someone elses church.

 

I've got an idea, why don't you take your guns and shoot the people that are trying to take your freedom away.

 

You must be drinking some strong fucking Kool-Aid Kabar. Gun control is not about "disarming the people" so the liberals can institute a totalitarian state. Gun control is about trying to keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them: violent criminals, the mentally ill, and kids. You yourself have said numerous times that you make a choice to become a criminal. When you make that choice you should expect not only to go to jail, but to lose your right to own a gun. If you're mentally unstable, you are incapable of using a gun properly and safely. Thus, you shouldn't own one. Guns should be kept away from kids, that shit is a no brainer.

I don't see what the big deal here is either. Woo fucking hoo, the supreme court read the unambiguous wording of my state constitution and came to the obvious conclusion: law abidign citizens have a right to own guns. Is this some sort of change in direction? Am I missing something?

Nekro

 

One of the foundation arguments of the anti-gun zealots is that the Second Amendment "right to keep and bear arms" is not an individual right, like every other right enshrined in the Bill of Rights, but is instead a collective right, exercised through the the state's right to have a National Guard.

 

This was never the original intent (if you read the arguments in the Virginia legislature where a lot of the original impetus for the Second Amendment came from, you'll see) and this whole deal about a collective right is just another red herring, an attempt to find a way to legally deny people their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms individually. If enough state Supreme Courts follow suit, there will be a substantial body of case law on which to settle this issue once and for all. Most gun rights advocates were pleasantly surprised by the Rhode Island Supreme Court decision. Most New England states have very anti-gun political climates. Vermont has a great attitude (it's a very Libertarian state--they support gay marriage too) and a few others. Massachusetts, of course, does not.